Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • What we call quantum mechanics today, may be nothing else than an ingenious technique

    October 28th, 2018 7:58 PM THIS WOULD BE MY PRESUMPTION

    —“Gerard’t Hooft conjectured that: “We should not forget that quantum mechanics does not really describe what kind of dynamical phenomena are actually going on, but rather gives us probabilistic results. To me, it seems extremely plausible that any reasonable theory for the dynamics at the Planck scale would lead to processes that are so complicated to describe, that one should expect apparently stochastic fluctuations in any approximation theory describing the effects of all of this at much larger scales. It seems quite reasonable first to try a classical, deterministic theory for the Planck domain. One might speculate then that what we call quantum mechanics today, may be nothing else than an ingenious technique to handle this dynamics statistically.”—

  • No. Here Is the Future of Btc

    October 28th, 2018 1:31 PM NO. HERE IS THE FUTURE OF BTC (No more lies, means no more btc lies too) [T]his is of course an interesting thought experiment, but of course the difference is that such a metal does not exist, the precious metals are in demand for un-replicable reasons, and they are insufficient in volume, so their function of a monetary substitute (holding place of value) is actually oil. Fiat money consists of shares in the state, and is in demand because the state demands it for taxes, and demands it’s monopoly. Bitcoin consists of shares in the bitcoin network. There is trivial difference between electronic distribution of any existing currency, and the distribution of bitcoin OTHER than the FEES that can be extracted for use of those other currencies, in exchange for state insurance of those transactions, and that the INDIVIDUAL COIN HOLDER provides the function of clearances between different currencies (locales), at lower FEES (transaction costs) at slower rates (transaction rates), in the absence of insurance by the currency issuer (the state or the btc network). There is no known method of insuring the BTC network and it remains slow expensive and fragile. As I’ve written consistently since I think 2012, all we are doing with these currencies is performing research and development for the state, which will NOT use a distributed but CENTRALIZED transaction processor, on top of existing financial networks, using the encryption technology, and the state will destroy private networks because the state can INSURE those transactions as well as police the input and output of money into and out of such networks. There is absolutely zero chance of any other outcome. As far as I know the legacy of BTC and similar products will be as registries of title, thereby eliminating title companies. Registries of stocks and interests. And if someone is smart enough, to eliminate the check-cashing businesses which will then be able to provide cash distribution services in lieu of risk, for flat fees rather than interest.

  • —“Curt, Will You Take on The Physics Community Too?”—

    October 28th, 2018 6:49 PM —“CURT, WILL YOU TAKE ON THE PHYSICS COMMUNITY TOO?”— (via the web site) TL;DR version: “No”. 😉 But it’s a good example of how to use testimonialism to test competing theories.

    —“Hi Curt, I have been following you on Facebook for several months and enjoy reading your ideas. I had been gradually moving away from Libertarianism, and Propertarianism clarified my skepticism of the former and connected many dots.”—

    Welcome then. Glad I could help. 😉 We’re all in this together it seems…. lol

    —“However, it became clear to me that you’ve missed a few things, most notably the century of fraud in physics (Quantum Mechanics). As far as I can tell, a particular anti-scientific philosophy (Kant) gave way to the rejection of fundamental scientific principles like absolute space, cause and effect, and identity. A group of mostly German physicists (Bohr, Heisenberg, Mach, Schrodinger etc) weren’t capable of solving the electron classically, and having adopted the aforementioned philosophy, devised the foundations of contemporary physics. Despite discordance with classic laws and experimentation, they invented (justified) their work with nonsense, claiming that classic laws breakdown at the subatomic level and that things could exist and not simultaneously. And they could only predict the behavior of Hydrogen (QM breaks down for everything higher on the periodic table). This has given us about a century of physics bullshit, like the currently fashionable multiverse theory, rampant curve fitting, and string theory. In the late 1980s, Hermann Haus derived the nonradiation condition, which coincidentally addressed a major problem pre-WW1 physicists faced: why electrons didn’t radiate energy under acceleration. One of his students, Randall Mills, was able to solve the electron using exclusively classic physics (Newtonian mechanics, Maxwells equations, special relativity, and Haus’s nonradiation condition). This was a revolution that few people know about to this day. And it permits the classical solution of a variety of other problems (molecular bonding, the unification of all physical forces, behaviors of fundamental particles, where gravity comes from, falsifying the Big Bang since the the universe perpetually oscillates). He also discovered that Hydrogen could go below the “ground state” (not really the ground state) and become one of a variety of nonradiative states he calls Hydrinos. Hydrinos are the Dark Matter that makes up nearly all of the universe. Mills has formed a company, Brilliant Light Power, that is working to commercialize applications of his work, primarily by utilizing Hydrinos as a novel energy source. I mention this because firstly, Mills’ story, and the corruption in physics, neatly adheres to your description of cognitive biases. It’s worth investing time to learn about. Secondly, the technological implications are extraordinary. Assuming he brings something to market soon, this will turn out to be the ultrasound imate black swan event. The end of all conventional energy sources, the end of the prevailing geopolitical order, the end of conventional transportation sources, and potentially the end of government as we know it. From my vantage point, this could be one hell of a plot twist to the revolution you’re predicting. “—

    [I]’m aware of this of line of argument of course but it is a book length treatment (or more), that I don’t have the time, will, skill or credibility to put together … and I have my own field to deal with… lol I falsify scientific work by searching for categories of consistent human error, very much like a psychologist or social scientists looks for examples of cognitive and social bias. If I don’t find those I deflate the argument and test whether the person is making a claim for which the knowledge upon which such a claim, is not dependent. And worse, if I find evidence of deception due to incentives. Most of scientific research that is questionable today consists of problems of statistical difficulty with insufficient preservation of constant relations because of a lack of operational knowledge or understanding, and because of the DENIAL of the OBVIOUS UNDERLYING MODEL. The physicists are having a problem (I THINK) because the underlying model is obviously in conflict with the frame of reference necessary to measure their experiments. But I don’t think that’s a particularly uncommon perception. I think they just don’t know what else to do until they stumble (reverse engineer) that model by a lot of trial and error. So while there are many competing theories, and I won’t address the one you mention specifically, you are correct (in part) on the origin of the frame of reference (model problem), it’s amplified even more so by the Mathiness Problem (mathematical idealism), and because of math the set problem, and together by the series of formulae they use that DO predict MOST. So I see them as prisoners from multiple dimensions, the philosophical one being the most distant – and I just dont think I can hold those people off in an argument they way I can theologians, philosophers, mathematicians, economists, jurists, and political scientists. I mean, it’s going to take someone with more of a vested interest in it than I am to work through that problem. And it is not a problem of ‘deceit’ as it is in economics, politics, and law. Just … well… a waste of a lot of pencils.

    —“As a side note, why did you put ads on your website? They look terrible and cause the site to regularly reload, interrupting the reader. Get rid of them ASAP. They’re making you look bad.”—

    I did not put ads on the site. It is because of the free hosting program forces them into the site. I have reasons for doing what I do. And no I don’t like it either. But for the present moment when I need to be able to move everything instantly, this is the most efficient method. I prefer to keep everything offshore. It’s just hard to do that at the moment for a host of reasons. Thank you very much for the thoughtful idea. Let’s keep fighting the good fight.

  • —“Curt: Please Define ‘Post-Moral’?”–

    October 27th, 2018 8:42 AM —“CURT: PLEASE DEFINE ‘POST-MORAL’?”–

    —“Can you explain POST-MORAL to a newb?”— Scott Claremont

    [S]o just like we changed from theological(authoritarian) discourse on morals, to philosophical (rational) discourse on morals during the enlightenment, that we have changed from philosophical (rational) discourse on morals, to scientific (measurements) discourse on morals. |Explanation(Model)| traditional(norm) > religious (theology) > rational (moral) > scientific (reciprocity). It means (a) our language consists of reasoning by morality( intuition, habit, norm, tradition) rather than reasoning by reciprocity(measurement),(b) and where morality(intuition, habit, norm, tradition) vary not only between groups, but between individuals, reciprocity does not. (c) as such we can use the language of law (decidability), accounting (directly measurable), and economics ( indirectly measurable) to measure that which removes ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit from our discussion of ‘morality’, and describe human actions scientifically (universally) rather than normatively (colloquially).

  • —“Curt: Please Define ‘Post-Moral’?”–

    October 27th, 2018 8:42 AM —“CURT: PLEASE DEFINE ‘POST-MORAL’?”–

    —“Can you explain POST-MORAL to a newb?”— Scott Claremont

    [S]o just like we changed from theological(authoritarian) discourse on morals, to philosophical (rational) discourse on morals during the enlightenment, that we have changed from philosophical (rational) discourse on morals, to scientific (measurements) discourse on morals. |Explanation(Model)| traditional(norm) > religious (theology) > rational (moral) > scientific (reciprocity). It means (a) our language consists of reasoning by morality( intuition, habit, norm, tradition) rather than reasoning by reciprocity(measurement),(b) and where morality(intuition, habit, norm, tradition) vary not only between groups, but between individuals, reciprocity does not. (c) as such we can use the language of law (decidability), accounting (directly measurable), and economics ( indirectly measurable) to measure that which removes ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit from our discussion of ‘morality’, and describe human actions scientifically (universally) rather than normatively (colloquially).

  • Relativism in Methods of Mindfulness (religion)

    October 27th, 2018 12:24 PM RELATIVISM IN METHODS OF MINDFULNESS (RELIGION)

    —“I can’t understand scripture. It sounds like girl gossip.”– Curt Doolittle —“It’s necessary for the rest of us Curt, the hoi polloi – it moves our soul.”—Freyr Bjornsson —“We assume what we intuit from our childhood is natural rather than taught. What moves us is well understood. The question is why some of us are taught it via nonsense and some of us not. ;)”—Curt Doolittle —“One man’s nonsense is another man’s salvation.”— Thomas G. Welsh —“I understand: the strong and able seek greater agency (stimulation), and the weak and unable seek greater relief (sedation). … (I’m never gonna let people create a false equality on this subject. lol)”—Curt Doolittle

  • Definancialization

    October 27th, 2018 12:05 PM

    —“Almost every conflict that we could name can be traced back to financial institutions, And they have all been centered around the control of others resources,”—

    [I]f you want to argue that we evolved: from normative governance > to religious governance > to legal governance > to credit governance > (and are moving into digital reputation governance as we have seen in China and the UK) …then yes. If you want to argue that we must definancialize the economy and polity such that we are once again under rule of law instead of credit and digital reputation; and that doing so will end the extraction of rates of reproduction and quality of life from the middle classes in order to increase the reproduction of the lower classes, and payment of the upper classes for doing so, then yes I am in agreement. If you attempt to deny that the organized application fo violence in the systematic use of law, to incrementally suppress free riding, parasitism and predation ISN”T how we civilized mankind by forcing people into markets, that’s going to be very difficult. Because politics(legislation and regulation) and law(Findings of law of Tort) are merely proxies for violence. if you want to argue that redistribution without constraint on reproduction is a good thing then you are engaging in moralizing in a misguided attempt to devolve civilization, standard of living, and replace democracy markets and rule of law with authoritarian central management and it’s deterministic consequences: dysgenia, and consequential impoverishment. Nature isn’t kind, people aren’t equal at all, and the difference in standards of living is little more than the difference in the sizes of the underclasses – those more successful at soft eugenics (suppressing underclass reproduction and upward redistribution of reproduction to the middle class), produced the highest standard of living for the simple reason that rate of raining increases rapidly below the upper thirty percent ( of the west) which is why india cannot become a china for example. But if you want to engage in feminine gossiping, rallying, shaming and ridicule, rather than argument you’re just perpetuating the problem. I know how to definnacialize the economy. I know how to redistribute standard of living from the financial, political, and entertainment classes to the middle productive classes. But are you willint to limit reproduction of the underclasses to one child in return? Economics in everything. It’s just physics for humans.

  • What Defines ‘human’?

    October 27th, 2018 11:41 AM WHAT DEFINES ‘HUMAN’?

    —“Is it possible that you have too high a standard for what qualifies as human?”– Joel Harvey

    [W]ell, that begs the question standard for what purpose? 1 – For cooperating commercially (trade on means) – yes. 2 – For socializing (exchanging information – on ends) – no. 3 – For political organization (cooperating on ends and means) – absolutely not. One does not let wild animals, domesticated animals, domesticated pets, children, or insufficiently domesticated and trained humans to influence that which they lack the agency to decide without harm to others.

  • Very few of us are yet human

    October 27th, 2018 11:10 AM WHO IS AND ISN’T HUMAN?

    —“Curt, Who isn’t currently human?”—Joel Harvey

    [I]s the line of demarcation between human and animal: 1) Morphology? 2) Sentience? (Reaction to stimuli) 3) Awareness? (Sympathy-intent/Empathy-experience/Imitation-action) 4) Speech? 5) Reason? (Agency) As far as I know, it is reason and agency which separates us from the animals. That means very few of us are yet human. The rest are in different stages of domesticated animal. And I suspect that number (percentage) corresponds to the pareto minimum. Yes, really. Our process of self domestication is far from complete. It is merely sufficient for west and to a lesser degree, east, to drag mankind out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, filth, poverty, starvation, disease, plagues, suffering, child mortality, early death, continuous violence, and the vicissitudes of nature. |HUMAN| The gods we aspire to be < Trained Humans < untrained humans < trained animals < untrained animals < untrainable animals. We domesticated plants, those animals we could domesticate, and those humans we could domesticate. We just left the job unfinished.

  • Arguing with The Left (feminine-Cognitive Process) Male

    October 27th, 2018 10:58 AM ARGUING WITH THE LEFT (FEMININE-COGNITIVE PROCESS) MALE

    —“I knew it, A veritable scream, I would play organ music and do bongs whilst you chanted in the corner, Ya crack stinks fella, Keep it snappy, 5-second attention span when looking at anything that doesn’t flash, squelch or explode.”— Damien Woodgate

    [A]gain. A statement of psychologism, the feminine substitute for argument, by use of “disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossiping, rallying, reputation destruction, and straw manning”, where the “straw manning” most commonly consists of mirroring the feminine emotional overwhelming of any semblance of agency or reason. Statement of fact. You have no intrinsic value. You have no value to me or mine. You cannot use the tactics of females because you do not have sex, affection, care, reproduction, or ally-negotiation to trade. You must produce some form of value to trade with me and mine, and demonstrate your fitness to trade with me and mine, BEFORE you have any value, and therefore BEFORE your attempted threat of non-cooperation, undermining, reputation destruction has any persuasive value. There is a reason for paternalism: sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, rule of law, and markets in everything – so that we domesticate the animals-that-speak, into the humans through training, education, and controlling their breeding. We domesticated the animal man. We have unfortunately left the job incomplete – as only some of us are currently human.