All strategies consist of porftolios. My observation even if it is wrong is that you practice the common human and especially conservative behavior of reduction of causality to serve your preference, rather than to reduce causality to the incentives of the factions that pursue…
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-18 22:49:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869515355036828001
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869513841824178369
Yes we can violate the laws of the universe – for a time. because memory and conseiousness allow us to predict futures that we can alter for our benefit even if there is a corresponding cost.
We can throw objects. We can fly. We can build rockets. So we can pay a cost up front (energy) that will be dissipated over time. The law is obeyed. But it can be defeated by a cost even if that cost will be ameliorated over time.
Humans can practice raiding until there is no one left to raid, or the remaining populations decide it is cheaper to destroy them than persist in tolerating them.
People can lie about economic possibility and take advantage of the lie for some period of time, but eventually the correction will occur and void the advantage.
Individuals can mask (crazy chicks) for a certain amount of time but at the end they will express their innate personality and with consequences that cause correction (reaction by others).
Same process.
There are no exceptions.
Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-18 22:44:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869514090932252672
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869512750847906033
You called what I am doing managerial, when I am just stating the laws of the universe.
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-18 22:38:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869512627862569313
Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869511790083625169
It absolutely can decide what: cost of variation from laws. We do it daily, every moment, with gravity as the most reductive example.
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-18 22:38:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869512480592122246
Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869505349474234623
If you consider the laws of the universe ‘managerial’ that’s an anthropomorphization. Those laws manifest cause and consequence everywhere at all times and there are no exceptions. The question is only the time before the deviation from that law manifests as decline, conquest, or collapse. Perhaps this is one of those cases where numerous historical examples are necessary but then, that’s covered in chapter one of the book I just granted you all access to yesterday. That we focus on rents as internal irreciprocities because that is the prensent need, is no different from focusing on external irresicprocities that are the result of differences in group evolutionary strategies, that always, over time, play out deterministically. in this sense, you can only ‘cheat’ the laws of the unvierse for short periods of time. And that is what you’re advocating. instead I would argue that any bit of irreciprocity (coercion) that produces less deviation from those laws is simply compressing the time necessary for the laws of nature to play out. As usual, I may see this all as obvious and it may not be but there are no exceptions to the rule. All we have is time. The less we deviate from the laws the more time we ‘create’. we may devate from the laws either to produce time or to save time by stealing it, or to buy short periods of time that may result in greater periods of time, or to act to prevent irreciprocity to save time.
It’s all just math. The universe is quite simple. It’s just the prodution of time throught he conversion of energy within the limits of the conservation of energy.
I realize this is perhaps too much for even educated people to grasp quickly but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.
There is no difference between behavioral processes and physical processes other than once we have genetic assemblies and eventually memory and cognition we can seek to outwit determinism and capture energy twe convert into time.
Again I will reinforce that most of you have only known me when I was seriously ill and cognitively suppressed. That illness and suppression continue to dissipate as I recover so some of these things are easier to spot. But additionally, I am able to be slightly more empathic and sympathetic which assists in the struggle to comprehend my failures in ‘connecting the dots’.
Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-18 22:30:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869510498674524160
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869506543395201213
And FWIW: My criticism that you’re doing the same as the libertarians still stands. The universe is constraint based not will based. And pragmatisms that cause the externalization of costs, unless the enemy is defeated and exterminated are simply debts that will manifest as retributions over time whether directly by those in conflict, or indirectly by those who wish to prevent a repetition. To state otherwise is a failure of full accounting.
Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-18 20:22:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869478271940952064
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869473920958783995
–“In universally commensurable scale independent context, given stable relations, in a stable equilibrium, adapting within the dynamic limits of that stable equilibrium, the result is pattern integrity.” — Brad Werrell @WerrellBradley
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-17 00:06:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868810053010309598
The result of this analysis, is the possibility of framing the collapse of pattern integrity by violation of the limits of dynamic equilibrium, causing dissipation of the stable equilibrium of stable relations. https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1868806416066396192
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-16 23:54:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868806923849715911
https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1868806416066396192
And I can’t understand why you can’t understand the difference between the universal first principle of causality of all subsequent behaviors,(science) and the resulting variation of behavior (applied science) that suits the interests of each polity.
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-15 20:28:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868392669023735874
Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868392093733056546
Universally people will behave as I suggested.
Universally the consequences will result as I suggested.
That’s empirical science.
Universally people will demonstrate utility in the application of that science without understanding what they’re doing precisely because their behavior is limited by that science.
The science remains (first cause), peoples demonstrate behavioral variation from it (good-utility), individuals demonstrate behavioral variation from it (preference-utility).
There is no exit from this logic any more than there is from entropy.
If you want to do philosophy (utility of a good) within a science (description of existence) then that’s fine – but it’s philosophy(choice) not science (decidability).
I do science and decidability and leave open the choice of philosophy.
If you want to o philosophy instead then do so but don’t criticize the science you operate under or you’re just lying like everyone else.
I am fully aware that I will likely lose this attempt to persuade you because of the dominance of your incentives given your country and circumstances are of more urgent utility in achieving your desired ends than the science is in mine.
That’s fine. It has no bearing on me what I say or my work other than to confirm everything I argue.
I’m just disturbed by your attempt to conflate a philosophical preference or utility as having any bearing on the science. And I’m resisting your attempt to ‘capture’ terms and meaning like the left does to suit the preferences and utility in your philosophy and it’s application to your polity.
So from my understanding you are practicing the libertarian attempt (middle class leftism), cultural marxism, and postmodernism(credentialist marxism), shared by all the abrahamic cults, to manipulate language such that it suits your preferences, rather than to constrain language to measurements that are free of such biases and deceptions.
As I have said repeatedly I respect your attempt to produce a continental small-country application of the work (a philosophy) even if it is often a cost I must bear while you continue to evolve in sophisticated.
While I recognize (as in the OP of this thread) people cannot separate my work on the science for my prescriptions for the anglosphere becaues tehre is so little divergence, that is different from your accusation that I myself don’t know the difference between the science and its application.
You could quite easily base your preferences on the science by creating a philosophy (applied science) rather than try to capture the science or my anglosphere recommendations for your use like the left does by claiming it’s a primacy rather than a derivation.
Hugs
CD
Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-15 20:22:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868391240884199424
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868385672383610949