Curt Doolittle

Theme: AI

  • AND TOPOLOGICAL DATA STRUCTURES Via @[605597:2048:Kashif Vikaas] I suppose that

    https://www2.wwt.com/all-blog/how-gpus-and-high-performance-computing-can-augment-big-data/GPU’S AND TOPOLOGICAL DATA STRUCTURES

    Via @[605597:2048:Kashif Vikaas]

    I suppose that its not common knowledge but we were doing this back in 2006, and if you’re going to store data in manifolds (topologies) of N-dimensions of relations, then you can used various pathing algorithms and even possibly N-dimensional visibility algorithms to search content far faster than any existing technology.

    This was our intention with Runcible’s technology.

    It was just too early and I realized that it was billion dollar research and development effort that I am not intellectually or emotionally of Financially or physically capable of managing without multiple nervous breakdowns. lol

    The problem at the time was storing data in each geometry but I think that’s teh difference between indexes and content, and that we should view geometric search engines as indexes of n-dimensional relations.

    If you have some vague understanding of what I’m saying here, this is why I understood that (a) actions, and (b) vitruvian semantics, grammar and syntax (metaphysics, and (c) Property in toto, provided computational commensurability in an unclosed data store.

    Why? Because for humans to understand anything it must be reduced to an analogy to experience, and as such human perception limits serve as a set of units of measure of all of reality.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-08 09:12:00 UTC

  • AND TOPOLOGICAL DATA STRUCTURES Via Kashif Vikaas I suppose that its not common

    https://www2.wwt.com/all-blog/how-gpus-and-high-performance-computing-can-augment-big-data/GPU’S AND TOPOLOGICAL DATA STRUCTURES

    Via Kashif Vikaas

    I suppose that its not common knowledge but we were doing this back in 2006, and if you’re going to store data in manifolds (topologies) of N-dimensions of relations, then you can used various pathing algorithms and even possibly N-dimensional visibility algorithms to search content far faster than any existing technology.

    This was our intention with Runcible’s technology.

    It was just too early and I realized that it was billion dollar research and development effort that I am not intellectually or emotionally of Financially or physically capable of managing without multiple nervous breakdowns. lol

    The problem at the time was storing data in each geometry but I think that’s teh difference between indexes and content, and that we should view geometric search engines as indexes of n-dimensional relations.

    If you have some vague understanding of what I’m saying here, this is why I understood that (a) actions, and (b) vitruvian semantics, grammar and syntax (metaphysics, and (c) Property in toto, provided computational commensurability in an unclosed data store.

    Why? Because for humans to understand anything it must be reduced to an analogy to experience, and as such human perception limits serve as a set of units of measure of all of reality.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-08 09:12:00 UTC

  • Evolution Of Intelligence (Outwitting Determinism)

      11 – Instrumentation(Artificial Intelligence) 10 – Language (late brain) 9 – Cooperation (Mid brain) 7 – Socialization (Early brain) 6 – Predation (Old brain) 5 – Escape (Brain Stem) 4 – Directional Movement (Nervous System) 3 – Movement (organisms) 2 – Reproduction (life – cells) 1 – Energy Conservation (we don’t have a name for this stage?)

  • Evolution Of Intelligence (Outwitting Determinism)

      11 – Instrumentation(Artificial Intelligence) 10 – Language (late brain) 9 – Cooperation (Mid brain) 7 – Socialization (Early brain) 6 – Predation (Old brain) 5 – Escape (Brain Stem) 4 – Directional Movement (Nervous System) 3 – Movement (organisms) 2 – Reproduction (life – cells) 1 – Energy Conservation (we don’t have a name for this stage?)

  • The Route to Operational Grammar

    I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verbalists’, (Cosmopolitans) and analytic logic, through to the ‘Turingists’ or Algorithmists, and then to operational logic. and I really don’t want to defecate on the analytic movement so much as get across the point that identities(math) and sets(‘logic’), just like empiricism(correspondence) are not sufficiently closed – or rather, cannot be closed. And worse, after first order logic, I am not sure that any of the rest has any more value than does game theory. Game theory might explain why we do soemthing but no actor ever engages in more than first order logic. So instead, if we start from operations, we are including the maximum commensuralbe, non-imaginary information, in our arguments. And that even then, truth propositions cannot be closed. If they are then they are no longer truth propositions, but tautologies. Since to requrie testimony requires information be provided. SUPERNATURAL (ignorance/stasis) (myth, scripture, command-law) Zoroaster -> Abraham -> …|-> Rabbinicals-> … … … |-> Christians -> Augustine -> (The Lost Millennium) … … … … … |-> Islamists -> 20th c. Fund. IDEAL (via words/meaning) (literature, scripture and arbitrary law) Plato -> Kant -> … … … … |->Marx(Soc.) … … … … … … |->Rand-Rothbard(Lib.) -> Hoppe … … … … … … |->Trotsky-Strauss(Neocon) … … … … |->Frege->Kripke … … … … … … |->Cantor->Keynes REAL(SCIENCE) (via actions/truth) (math, science, and common law) Aristotle->Bacon/Newton … |->Locke/Smith/Hume … … … |->Jefferson/Adams -> Hayek |->Poincare ->Hilbert |->Babbage ->Boole -> Turing … … … … … … … …… … … |-> Chomsky |->Darwin -> (Many) -> Wilson/Crick -> |->Maxwell -> (Many)

  • The Route to Operational Grammar

    I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verbalists’, (Cosmopolitans) and analytic logic, through to the ‘Turingists’ or Algorithmists, and then to operational logic. and I really don’t want to defecate on the analytic movement so much as get across the point that identities(math) and sets(‘logic’), just like empiricism(correspondence) are not sufficiently closed – or rather, cannot be closed. And worse, after first order logic, I am not sure that any of the rest has any more value than does game theory. Game theory might explain why we do soemthing but no actor ever engages in more than first order logic. So instead, if we start from operations, we are including the maximum commensuralbe, non-imaginary information, in our arguments. And that even then, truth propositions cannot be closed. If they are then they are no longer truth propositions, but tautologies. Since to requrie testimony requires information be provided. SUPERNATURAL (ignorance/stasis) (myth, scripture, command-law) Zoroaster -> Abraham -> …|-> Rabbinicals-> … … … |-> Christians -> Augustine -> (The Lost Millennium) … … … … … |-> Islamists -> 20th c. Fund. IDEAL (via words/meaning) (literature, scripture and arbitrary law) Plato -> Kant -> … … … … |->Marx(Soc.) … … … … … … |->Rand-Rothbard(Lib.) -> Hoppe … … … … … … |->Trotsky-Strauss(Neocon) … … … … |->Frege->Kripke … … … … … … |->Cantor->Keynes REAL(SCIENCE) (via actions/truth) (math, science, and common law) Aristotle->Bacon/Newton … |->Locke/Smith/Hume … … … |->Jefferson/Adams -> Hayek |->Poincare ->Hilbert |->Babbage ->Boole -> Turing … … … … … … … …… … … |-> Chomsky |->Darwin -> (Many) -> Wilson/Crick -> |->Maxwell -> (Many)

  • I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verb

    I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verbalists’, (Cosmopolitans) and analytic logic, through to the ‘Turingists’ or Algorithmists, and then to operational logic. and I really don’t want to defecate on the analytic movement so much as get across the point that identities(math) and sets(‘logic’), just like empiricism(correspondence) are not sufficiently closed – or rather, cannot be closed. And worse, after first order logic, I am not sure that any of the rest has any more value than does game theory. Game theory might explain why we do soemthing but no actor ever engages in more than first order logic. So instead, if we start from operations, we are including the maximum commensuralbe, non-imaginary information, in our arguments. And that even then, truth propositions cannot be closed. If they are then they are no longer truth propositions, but tautologies. Since to requrie testimony requires information be provided. SUPERNATURAL (ignorance/stasis) (myth, scripture, command-law) Zoroaster -> Abraham -> …|-> Rabbinicals-> … … … |-> Christians -> Augustine -> (The Lost Millennium) … … … … … |-> Islamists -> 20th c. Fund. IDEAL (via words/meaning) (literature, scripture and arbitrary law) Plato -> Kant -> … … … … |->Marx(Soc.) … … … … … … |->Rand-Rothbard(Lib.) -> Hoppe … … … … … … |->Trotsky-Strauss(Neocon) … … … … |->Frege->Kripke … … … … … … |->Cantor->Keynes REAL(SCIENCE) (via actions/truth) (math, science, and common law) Aristotle->Bacon/Newton … |->Locke/Smith/Hume … … … |->Jefferson/Adams -> Hayek |->Poincare ->Hilbert |->Babbage ->Boole -> Turing … … … … … … … …… … … |-> Chomsky |->Darwin -> (Many) -> Wilson/Crick -> |->Maxwell -> (Many)

  • I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verb

    I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verbalists’, (Cosmopolitans) and analytic logic, through to the ‘Turingists’ or Algorithmists, and then to operational logic. and I really don’t want to defecate on the analytic movement so much as get across the point that identities(math) and sets(‘logic’), just like empiricism(correspondence) are not sufficiently closed – or rather, cannot be closed. And worse, after first order logic, I am not sure that any of the rest has any more value than does game theory. Game theory might explain why we do soemthing but no actor ever engages in more than first order logic. So instead, if we start from operations, we are including the maximum commensuralbe, non-imaginary information, in our arguments. And that even then, truth propositions cannot be closed. If they are then they are no longer truth propositions, but tautologies. Since to requrie testimony requires information be provided. SUPERNATURAL (ignorance/stasis) (myth, scripture, command-law) Zoroaster -> Abraham -> …|-> Rabbinicals-> … … … |-> Christians -> Augustine -> (The Lost Millennium) … … … … … |-> Islamists -> 20th c. Fund. IDEAL (via words/meaning) (literature, scripture and arbitrary law) Plato -> Kant -> … … … … |->Marx(Soc.) … … … … … … |->Rand-Rothbard(Lib.) -> Hoppe … … … … … … |->Trotsky-Strauss(Neocon) … … … … |->Frege->Kripke … … … … … … |->Cantor->Keynes REAL(SCIENCE) (via actions/truth) (math, science, and common law) Aristotle->Bacon/Newton … |->Locke/Smith/Hume … … … |->Jefferson/Adams -> Hayek |->Poincare ->Hilbert |->Babbage ->Boole -> Turing … … … … … … … …… … … |-> Chomsky |->Darwin -> (Many) -> Wilson/Crick -> |->Maxwell -> (Many)

  • I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verb

    I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verbalists’, (Cosmopolitans) and analytic logic, through to the ‘Turingists’ or Algorithmists, and then to operational logic. and I really don’t want to defecate on the analytic movement so much as get across the point that identities(math) and sets(‘logic’), just like empiricism(correspondence) are not sufficiently closed – or rather, cannot be closed. And worse, after first order logic, I am not sure that any of the rest has any more value than does game theory. Game theory might explain why we do soemthing but no actor ever engages in more than first order logic. So instead, if we start from operations, we are including the maximum commensuralbe, non-imaginary information, in our arguments. And that even then, truth propositions cannot be closed. If they are then they are no longer truth propositions, but tautologies. Since to requrie testimony requires information be provided.

    SUPERNATURAL (ignorance/stasis) (myth, scripture, command-law)

    Zoroaster -> Abraham ->

    …|-> Rabbinicals->

    … … … |-> Christians -> Augustine -> (The Lost Millennium)

    … … … … … |-> Islamists -> 20th c. Fund.

    IDEAL (via words/meaning) (literature, scripture and arbitrary law)

    Plato -> Kant ->

    … … … … |->Marx(Soc.)

    … … … … … … |->Rand-Rothbard(Lib.) -> Hoppe

    … … … … … … |->Trotsky-Strauss(Neocon)

    … … … … |->Frege->Kripke

    … … … … … … |->Cantor->Keynes

    REAL(SCIENCE) (via actions/truth) (math, science, and common law)

    Aristotle->Bacon/Newton …

    |->Locke/Smith/Hume

    … … … |->Jefferson/Adams -> Hayek

    |->Poincare ->Hilbert

    |->Babbage ->Boole -> Turing

    … … … … … … … …… … … |-> Chomsky

    |->Darwin -> (Many) -> Wilson/Crick ->

    |->Maxwell -> (Many)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-01 13:20:00 UTC

  • Socialists(priesthood): Faith in Technology -vs- Aristocrats(military): Certaint

    Socialists(priesthood): Faith in Technology -vs- Aristocrats(military): Certainty of Genetics feminine vs masculine