Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • Don’t get it backwards. Math is so powerful precisely ’cause it’s so simple (dum

    Don’t get it backwards. Math is so powerful precisely ’cause it’s so simple (dumb). It’s easy to be correct when you choose your own causal density. It’s far harder to be correct when you can’t.

    Math is pretty simple for that reason, and we can delve into great complexity because of simplicity.

    But we are having problems in physics at higher causal density.

    And mathematics is all but useless in social science (say, in economics) because of causal density.

    And we can’t even figure out a unit of measure for sentience yet, which is an even higher causal density.

    So when people make statements like you just did, it sounds a little bit like someone saying chess is complicated. Actually it’s not. It’s a closed (ludic) game. It’s just hard for humans. There is math that is hard for humans for the same reason: mere scale of permutations. But it’s still trivial.

    Tell me how to measure the market value of a brand.

    Tell me how to measure the future rate of decline of iphone appeal.

    Tell me how to measure how much information it takes to change state from one idea to another?

    Doing puzzles is simple.

    Problems have high causal density.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-28 12:57:00 UTC

  • ‘velvet glove’ n. : superficial gentleness and courtesy masking a strong and uny

    ‘velvet glove’ n.

    : superficial gentleness and courtesy masking a strong and unyielding will or determination

    (cd: Hmm… I didn’t know that’s what it meant. I’ve always taken it literally.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-28 12:20:00 UTC

  • (i’m struggling so hard to speak slowly in interviews that I don’t sound like my

    (i’m struggling so hard to speak slowly in interviews that I don’t sound like myself to me. I used to talk very fast (and still can) and maybe I’ve taken it too far.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-28 08:06:00 UTC

  • Simplicity is necessary in mathematics since mathematical symbols and operations

    Simplicity is necessary in mathematics since mathematical symbols and operations itself (state and operators) are necessary to allow us to remember state with sufficient precision that we can conduct comparisons between states.

    However, if we restated the foundations of mathematics operationally (constructively – analogous to gears), and we stated the foundations of mathematical deduction negatively, as geometry, we would be able to show that it is convergence between the via-positiva construction, and the via-negative deduction that leads us to truth.

    Unfortunately, man discovered (logically so) geometry prior to gears, and as such, we retain the ‘superstitious’ language of geometry (and algebra) of the superstitious era in which both were invented.

    Reality has only so many dimensions. By adding and removing dimensions from consideration we simplify the problem of describing the constant relations within it.

    Mathematics specializes in the removal of (a) scale, and (b) time, and (c) operations (and arguable (d) morality) from consideration, leaving only identity, quantity, and ratio, to which we add positional naming (numbers). We then construct general rules of arbitrary precision (scale independence) and apply those to reality wherein we must ‘hydrate’ (reconstitute) scale, time, and operations(actions).

    So just as philosophy is ‘stuck’ in non contradiction instead of increasing dimensions in order to test theories, mathematics is ‘stuck’ in non-contradiction instead of re-hydrating (restoring dimensions) to justify propositions.

    In other words, fancy words like ‘limits’ or ‘non-contradictory’ or ‘axiom of choice’ and various other terms in the field are just nonsense words that prevent the conversion of mathematics from a fictionalism into a science.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-28 07:10:00 UTC

  • ( if you’re gonna use a sock account at least use a damned profile photo … wtf

    ( if you’re gonna use a sock account at least use a damned profile photo … wtf. it’s almost impossible to know who to approve. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-28 06:29:00 UTC

  • I’m on the side of Poincare and Brouwer (and to some degree Hilbert) that cantor

    I’m on the side of Poincare and Brouwer (and to some degree Hilbert) that cantor was influential in expanding mathematical fictionalism (platonism), and thereby preventing the reformation of mathematics ( and philosophy) that we saw in the sciences.

    This remains unfortunate, since any statement of mathematical fictionalism (platonism) can be stated scientifically (operationally) and therefore these fictions are not only unnecessary but impeded the teaching of math and to some degree pollute the other fields.

    Now, for a person trained in mathematics (measurement), this is all very difficult to understand, just as to a philosopher trained in rationalism (non-contradiction) it is very difficult to understand, just as a theologian trained in idealism it is very difficult to understand. We all make excuses for useful fictions.

    However, the consequences of useful fictions to humanity is cumulatively profound (expensive).

    In fact, I am increasingly convinced that the ‘set’ movement from the 1800’s to the present is not only unnecessary, but harmful on a scale that is unimaginable to all but a few. As Popper said there are not only sources of knowledge, but sources of ignorance, and when we had the opportunity to deflate mathematics and convert it from a philosophy to a science, we failed.

    This tragedy becomes more obvious once we realize that according to Bridgman, we might have had an Einstein a century earlier if mathematics had not be mired in platonism (fictionalism).

    In my work, I’m increasingly aware that the rise of pseudoscientific economics, our failure to develop strictly constructed law, the loss of a century in philosophy, and the expansion of pseudoscience in physics (multiple worlds), are caused by the failure of mathematics – the most basic (simple) and therefore innovative of the logics – to reform.

    Magic is still with us. The enlightenment remains unfinished.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-28 06:28:00 UTC

  • bad sleep night. bad software day. wanna break something. (preferably something

    bad sleep night. bad software day. wanna break something.

    (preferably something that psychotic and stupid that bleeds.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-27 18:39:00 UTC

  • Now, I can train people to solve for true rather than for good. But like anythin

    Now, I can train people to solve for true rather than for good. But like anything else it takes a hell of a lot of repetition to develop intuitions that favor the true rather than the (false) good.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-27 18:36:00 UTC

  • it’s almost impossible for even the most dedicated of people to switch from thin

    it’s almost impossible for even the most dedicated of people to switch from thinking in terms of good, to thinking in terms of true. If you use natural law as your means of decidability, then that which is true will in fact always be a good. But only the market can decide if it is a preferred good. You can’t. No matter how hard you try. So try to determine if something is true not good. Any ‘good’ you can imagine will be subjectively decided based upon some outcome you prefer. Whereas natural law will merely ensure that we select preferences that produce goods regardless of what we imagine.

    Its all just math at this point.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-27 18:35:00 UTC

  • BTW: I’m from the Jones Generation (“yuppies”) coming of age in the late 70’s al

    BTW: I’m from the Jones Generation (“yuppies”) coming of age in the late 70’s along with Gates, Ellison, and Jobs, and not boomer generation coming of age in the 60’s to early 70’s. Your generational affinity occurs from around ages 15-22 – when you develop ‘awareness’ and ‘independence’.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-27 14:03:00 UTC