@Nationalist7346 Yep. (are you back on twitter yet? I miss you. lol)
Source date (UTC): 2020-12-29 17:27:52 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105464651606880216
@Nationalist7346 Yep. (are you back on twitter yet? I miss you. lol)
Source date (UTC): 2020-12-29 17:27:52 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105464651606880216
@alternative_right Scientists: seek to reduce immigration and employment and maximize VARIABLE redistribution thereby producing universally compatible incentives.
Source date (UTC): 2020-12-29 17:24:16 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105464637420402757
Would Life Evolve?
Would Life Evolve?
WHAT IF WE ‘RE-RAN’ THE UNIVERSE?
Would Life Evolve?
Any “grammar” given enough opportunity(scale and time) will calculate(randomly discover) every opportunity (possibility) to defeat entropy(capture energy). The sun, distance, temperature, water-vapor, iron-core, moon, duration combination is looking rarer than I’d expected.
It is extremely unlikely that the universe can produce variations other than the one that we see around us.
The theory of many universes (bubbles) is unequal to alternate universes.
We apparently cannot deduce from the information available the geometry of the subatomic.
It’s more likely that some variation on the constructivist method (Wolfram) will produce information that suggests the underlying geometry, and that we can solve for the differences.
Why? Mathiness is a problem in physics, and most “silly ideas” reflect limits of math.
none of these propositions claim knowledge of physics, they claim only that the many questionable hypotheses we see put forward in physics reflect human ignorance of the constitution of mathematics (description, sets, deduction) and computation (construction by operations).
Source date (UTC): 2020-12-28 17:35:05 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105459017622892393
Boost of @realdonaldtrump See you in Washington, DC, on January 6th. Donโt miss it. Information to follow!
Source date (UTC): 2020-12-27 22:51:41 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105454639995849795
FORMAL PROBLEM 1) A mathematical model is a general rule, necessarily statistical, and is not an operational (causally complete) model – we fail to understand the limits of mathematics as we increase precision. (mathematical descriptions are invariably generalizations, and at the point of marginal difference, algorithmic simulations must replace mathematical calculations) 2) Mathematical models rely on generalizations that discount causal influences that are marginally indifferent UNTIL they are no longer marginally indifferent. (models require more information at scale) 3) There must exist three dimensions (competitive axis) in order to form a competitive evolutionary equilibrium. (choice must exist) DISCUSSIONS 1) Peacock Tail. Why Is That? Because nature can’t calculate a maximum expression of fitness without a competing axis of fitness. Conditions must change. 2) Genes are modified by other genes, so that fitness in youth and death in age is likely to survive, so the rest is. This is offset by intergenerational caretaking and knowledge transfer, making grandparents the end value. 3) Weinstein’s “It’s not for me” and “selfish replicators” is, in fact, a genetic expression specifically because we see the masculine european evolutionary Dawkins and the feminine Semitic devolutionary in Weinstein – reflecting our group evolutionary strategies, and the european and Jewish specialization in male vs female reproductive strategies. This is why Europeans (masculine eugenic quality) and european jews (feminine dysgenic quantity) serve as the intellectual leadership in the world, at least under democracy where these differences are enabled, vs the rest of the world, particularly China, maintains the masculine competitive evolutionary demonstrating at the civilizational level why there are no feminine civilizations and why Abrahamic (Semitic) civilizations devolved. 4) Dawkins’ “this is not Darwinism, its not helpful to couch this in Darwinian terms”. Weinstein is using pilpul and critique (the Abrahamic method of deceit) to seek opportunity for weakness despite its devolutionary consequences. He’s not talking about evolution. He’s talking politics. And he’s advocating for a political wing (leftism) not for evolution. In fact he’s arguing for devolution. In other words, Dawkins is disambiguating in search for truth and Weinstein is conflating to create ambiguity, in order to advance a political bias (that’s actually bad). 5) Genocide: Genocide is the most effective and determinant evolutionary behavior in history. That’s an unpleasant truth. (Hybridization is also genocide.) it won’t go away. it will simply be necessary or not, or useful or not. 6) FWIW: european history is a battle between the Mediterranean > Christian > supernatural > feminine > Latin > french south and the continental > empirical > masculine > germanic north, and the french catholic Latin persistence of the feminine Semitic authoritarian strategy attempt to destroy the germanic rational-legal holy roman empire wherein the Prussians restored the european tradition. The jews and the french and the germanic and protestants continue an ancestral conflict and it’s rather obvious in retrospect that the enemy of human civilization is the feminine. 7) Eusocial upward redistribution (he’s referring to priesthood vs Jewish rabbinical method). These are differences in group use of capital. This is why I argue that economics is a better language than biology as soon as we hit the agrarian age. Catholics produce corruption. 8) Weinstein is trying to justify Judaism and Dawkins is trying to state science. Which is, in fact, the difference between european masculine aristocratic and Jewish feminine communist group strategies. (which is fascinating). ๐
FORMAL PROBLEM 1) A mathematical model is a general rule, necessarily statistical, and is not an operational (causally complete) model – we fail to understand the limits of mathematics as we increase precision. (mathematical descriptions are invariably generalizations, and at the point of marginal difference, algorithmic simulations must replace mathematical calculations) 2) Mathematical models rely on generalizations that discount causal influences that are marginally indifferent UNTIL they are no longer marginally indifferent. (models require more information at scale) 3) There must exist three dimensions (competitive axis) in order to form a competitive evolutionary equilibrium. (choice must exist) DISCUSSIONS 1) Peacock Tail. Why Is That? Because nature can’t calculate a maximum expression of fitness without a competing axis of fitness. Conditions must change. 2) Genes are modified by other genes, so that fitness in youth and death in age is likely to survive, so the rest is. This is offset by intergenerational caretaking and knowledge transfer, making grandparents the end value. 3) Weinstein’s “It’s not for me” and “selfish replicators” is, in fact, a genetic expression specifically because we see the masculine european evolutionary Dawkins and the feminine Semitic devolutionary in Weinstein – reflecting our group evolutionary strategies, and the european and Jewish specialization in male vs female reproductive strategies. This is why Europeans (masculine eugenic quality) and european jews (feminine dysgenic quantity) serve as the intellectual leadership in the world, at least under democracy where these differences are enabled, vs the rest of the world, particularly China, maintains the masculine competitive evolutionary demonstrating at the civilizational level why there are no feminine civilizations and why Abrahamic (Semitic) civilizations devolved. 4) Dawkins’ “this is not Darwinism, its not helpful to couch this in Darwinian terms”. Weinstein is using pilpul and critique (the Abrahamic method of deceit) to seek opportunity for weakness despite its devolutionary consequences. He’s not talking about evolution. He’s talking politics. And he’s advocating for a political wing (leftism) not for evolution. In fact he’s arguing for devolution. In other words, Dawkins is disambiguating in search for truth and Weinstein is conflating to create ambiguity, in order to advance a political bias (that’s actually bad). 5) Genocide: Genocide is the most effective and determinant evolutionary behavior in history. That’s an unpleasant truth. (Hybridization is also genocide.) it won’t go away. it will simply be necessary or not, or useful or not. 6) FWIW: european history is a battle between the Mediterranean > Christian > supernatural > feminine > Latin > french south and the continental > empirical > masculine > germanic north, and the french catholic Latin persistence of the feminine Semitic authoritarian strategy attempt to destroy the germanic rational-legal holy roman empire wherein the Prussians restored the european tradition. The jews and the french and the germanic and protestants continue an ancestral conflict and it’s rather obvious in retrospect that the enemy of human civilization is the feminine. 7) Eusocial upward redistribution (he’s referring to priesthood vs Jewish rabbinical method). These are differences in group use of capital. This is why I argue that economics is a better language than biology as soon as we hit the agrarian age. Catholics produce corruption. 8) Weinstein is trying to justify Judaism and Dawkins is trying to state science. Which is, in fact, the difference between european masculine aristocratic and Jewish feminine communist group strategies. (which is fascinating). ๐
@Tayai As expected: suicide bomber. targeting ATT. long term plan. interesting if we find out his underlying motive.
Source date (UTC): 2020-12-27 03:57:13 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105450139403376017
CURT’S RESULTS: PETERSON’S BIG FIVE (“understand myself”)
I have taken (and given) variations on these tests since my early twenties and they’re absurdly consistent across time, with the only oddity being extroversion which I see as in perpetual conflict with my aspie-ism. I do think I”m more volatile than the tests measure. Otherwise this is accurate. IMO it takes 5-600 Questions like the Minnesota Multiphasic but 100 gets us pretty close.
Agreeableness: Moderately Low 29
… F: Compassion: Moderately Low 25
… M: Politeness: Moderately Low 38
Conscientiousness: Very High 91
… Industriousness: Very High 93
… Orderliness: High 80
Extraversion: Very High 94
… F: Enthusiasm: Moderately High 75
… M: Assertiveness: Exceptionally High 97
Neuroticism: Moderately Low 26
… Withdrawal: Low 19
… Volatility: Mod Low 38
Openness to Experience: Exceptionally High 96
… M: Intellect: Exceptionally High 97
… F: Openness: High 84
Source date (UTC): 2020-12-26 19:46:07 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105448208306029383