Curt Doolittle

Source: Twitter X

  • Yet another insight: Gary Stanley Becker really brought what the austirans sough

    Yet another insight: Gary Stanley Becker really brought what the austirans sought into scientific formalism.
    So while I appreciate Hazlitt’s Economics in one lesson, the austrian (at least misesian) attempt at economic operationalism (economics as a social science), in the hayekian (informal capital), the Rothardian (separatist, legal tradition) and Hoppeian (german free cities, property as universal commensurability), the anglo imperial or strong federal, (possibly my work as information as common capital), the culmination is the combination of economic operationalism can be found by unifying them under the beckerian supply demand illustrations which are the only visual means of reduction of economic principles.
    In my understanding we solved social science in four generations.
    That’s not bad.
    Unfortunately, we lose.
    Because economics is not practiced as a means of explanation but as a means of coercion by conflation, inflation, and fictionalization of the discipline, and in particular the fictionalism of mathematical reduction as a means of obscuring and deceiving

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-09 20:32:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2020959044048126114

  • Added you to our list. We’ll treat you as part of our extended team. Thanks for

    Added you to our list.
    We’ll treat you as part of our extended team.
    Thanks for your investment in this project.
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-09 19:56:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2020950018753167849

  • RE: –“Why Modern Economics Is Built on a Lie w/ Bob Murphy”– See: https:// you

    RE: –“Why Modern Economics Is Built on a Lie w/ Bob Murphy”–
    See:
    https://
    youtube.com/watch?v=hYtf9O
    p3poA
    …

    Bob is pretty much always right. I’ll try to clarify:
    a) Economics consist of high causal density.
    b) Economic variables vary constantly in time.
    c) Therefore economics is limited in its reducibility (Reducibility: {operational, algorithmic, mathematic, categorical, identity, naturalism, realism})
    d) Therefore economics is more post-hoc descriptive than ex-ante predictive. (ergo: predictability is a property of reducibility, the lower the reducibility the more limited to descriptive.)
    e) Therefore we can construct general rules of descriptive economics even if we are limited in general rules of predictive economics.
    f) We can discuss economics in the same realm as any other science using operationaism and empiricism as long as we realize that the limit of reducibility is using natural indices (Labels) rather than cardinal (Numbers).
    There is no need to carry such rules further into philosophical rationalism – it devolves into an analysis of language not cause and consequence. This was a mistake of the early 20th. Mises did not realize he had discovered operationalism in physics at the same time that operationalism (under various labels) was discovered in physics and mathematics. But he was captured by rationalism. Philosophy had not yet reached the dead end it had by the 1960s.
    g) So just as euclidean geometry is a system of measurement for human scale, and fails and post-human-scale, economic rationalism is a system of measurement for human scale and fails at post-human scale.
    h) Bob’s narrative of the comparison with geometry vs its limits, or Gödel’s theorem (which is a very limited arithmetic and so overused example) and its limits, is correct. All systems have limits. All systems must only account for closure within its limits.
    The problem austrians face with the apriori is an unnecessary abstraction that does not improve anything that cannot be stated in scientific prose if we understand reducibility and indexability as I’ve stated here.
    So it is better to attempt a formalism in rationalism (set theory) than cardinality, but then it is better to adopt a formalism in operationalism than rationalism. And we can leave the archaic reasoning of our ancestors behind.
    i) All language constitutes a system of measurements. The question is only the precision given the demands of the context we wish to measure.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    NLI

    cc:
    @BobMurphyEcon

    @RobertBreedlove

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-09 19:55:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2020949790750830901

  • Another thought.. In general, changes in the world and changes in our bodies tha

    Another thought..
    In general, changes in the world and changes in our bodies that cause change in assets causes change in biochemistry causes change in emotion, causes interruption or influence on prefrontal planning.
    To manage the scarcity of actions (energy) and time, while taking advantage of our capacity to predict using networks of episodic memory, we engage our wayfinding (first cause of the brain), to maintain a goal through different environmental, bodily and mental states.
    Conversely there are multiple means by which the nervous system can interrupt and override that process.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-09 19:14:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2020939397500371193

  • Long time friend Simon Strong posts one of his insights with a video on the West

    Long time friend Simon Strong posts one of his insights with a video on the West Eurasian Holocene

    https://substack.com/@simonstrom/note/c-199480163?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=e1rgj…

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-09 19:13:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2020939085003866551

  • Emotions are not causes they are consequences. What is the cause of each of the

    Emotions are not causes they are consequences. What is the cause of each of the emotions used? It is always a change in demonstrated interests. The body and brain calculate changes in assets present and future and supplies stimuli as a result. Those emotions are our observations and labeling of those stimuli. Emotional stimuli are not causes, they are consequences of causes.
    So I would add causality under each emotion in order to maintain consistency with causality.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-09 19:07:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2020937703194493374

  • it might be that I have too much else going on in my head at the moment, but I r

    it might be that I have too much else going on in my head at the moment, but I recognize both premises but I’m not sure the relation you’re making. Usually you’re correct. So please try again or give me an example.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-09 19:03:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2020936727502913584

  • “How can you Americans live with this scum as US president?”— Because we know

    —“How can you Americans live with this scum as US president?”—

    Because we know he is trying to restore responsibility and particularly civic and national responsibility.
    And why?
    Because europeans don’t carry their weight on one hand and signal virtue for not doing so.
    The USA can’t carry the international order in the face of the three remaining states with imperial instead of federal ambitions.
    So either put up and restore your national responsibilities both as countries and as a federation or you will suffer the consequences of your repeated failures to carry your own weight.
    We can’t do it any longer.
    Our debt will get as out of control as France’s.
    Our population will collapse as badly as Germany’s.
    Our economy will collapse as badly as the UK’s.
    Our civil strife due to immigration will collapse as badly as the Nordics and France.
    We will all be as difficult to govern as Italy.
    We will all be as poor as the southeastern europeans.
    And we will all be victims of resurgent empires.

    Just because you don’t like someone doesn’t mean he’s not right. He is. Sorry. It’s not opinion its economic and strategic necessity.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-09 19:02:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2020936342570754349

  • This is the most painful reality that the left must deal with. Criminality is no

    This is the most painful reality that the left must deal with. Criminality is not economic. It’s genetic and subsequently cultural as well.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-09 18:56:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2020934772713980278

  • “I wonder if the programming AI could be tricked into seeing NL as code and ther

    –“I wonder if the programming AI could be tricked into seeing NL as code and therefore applying it more strictly.”–
    @NoahRevoy
    NLI, Runcible

    Well I mean, it does – that’s why it works. Operational prose is just ‘code’ for human action at human scale in the existential reality we must navigate. That’s why we’re so strict about ‘enumeration, serialization, operationalization, and disambiguation into an identity”, and why we produce a dictionary, and dictionary terms on a dimension producing natural indexing and measurment – so that langauge becomes code.

    The AI’s (or at least be better ones) understand this and why we’re doing it. That’s why they can render the output that they do.

    Our problem (really) is that while we have created the language and the compiler, the present LLMs (operating system) are having as much problem running our ‘program’ with current memory limitations as did my original work in the 1980s using semantic indexes (tokens), possible actions (actions), and episodic memories (contexts) for predicting optimum choices (outcomes).

    I couldn’t do it (well) in assembler back then because of memory limits, and I’m having a heck of a time with 256K context windows doing it with LLMs today. I ran into the same problem building the first serious legal AI. Semantic depth is a memory burden because it’s a relational density burden because in turn, the information is stored in terms that are relationally dense.

    Whereas the human brain does it all in a massively parallel hierarchy, we have to produce domain, customer, individual protocols, then put them through our epistemic protocols to determine if they’re true.
    We could parallelize some of the epistemic protocols but again, that’s a cost.
    If we were to continue to use OpenaI for a hard question we could burn $2 per analysis and more for a certification. Whereas for most people with most questions our ChatGPT Custom GPT will do a better job already than any other LLM.
    Fundamentally any of these LLMs without compartmentalization produce drift just like people with ADD produce drift.

    So yes, it’s code. And the LLMs are operating systems that can run semantic code. But they were trained to favor normativity instead of truth, so until we can audit an entire 1T+ parameter LLM (which costs $$$$$!) we won’t have an operating system to run our ‘program’ on that doesn’t basically insert error.

    Cheers 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-06 23:11:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2019911909915721836