Theme: Causality

  • BELOW THE QUANTUM (worth repeating) … At present we deduce that a difference i

    BELOW THE QUANTUM

    (worth repeating)

    … At present we deduce that a difference in fundamental charges is producing a subsequent difference in fundamental charge distributions that we call quantum fields, and a distribution of temporary density of that quantum field we call a particle.

    And by repeating this process of a difference in the pattern of charges, particles form combinations we call atoms or elements, elements form chemicals ,chemicals form molecules, molecules that include carbon produce biochemical molecules, biochemical molecules form proteins, proteins produce molecules necessary for cells, cells produce other cells, cells produce organs, organs produce organisms, organisms produce nervous systems, nervous systems produce memories, memories produce predictions, predictions product choices, and there we go.

    The entirety of the ‘grammar’ of the universe is – similar to binary or ternary logic – a difference in charges, whose change we call entropy: the tendency of all charges to equilibrate from order caused by differences in charges, to the disorder – the minimum difference in charges possible. …


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:16:00 UTC

  • THERE IS NO FERMI PARADOX As in all things there is no paradox, just an open que

    THERE IS NO FERMI PARADOX

    As in all things there is no paradox, just an open question, no paradoxes exist.

    One can falsify the fermi question. It is falsifiable.We have failed to falsify it.

    One cannot disprove, only fail to provide a proof of possibility in an axiomatic system like mathematics, and reality is a theoretic system, not axiomatic.

    At present it is falsifiable, un-falsified, and undecidable, and therefore all we can say is that “we don’t know yet”.

    The most obvious reasons are:

    1 – Technological (EMR is a primitive technology)

    2 – Differences are such that we would be of no trading (cooperative) value; interfering would only create a competitor; and it is too early for a colonization effort to have reached us given the recent development of EMR broadcasting.

    3 – Time and distance window of opportunity

    4 – We are in a calm location between arms, in a calm (dying) galaxy, and have had long enough period of growth to ‘bake’ in necessary conditions

    5 – I am concerned that the spinning liquid iron core of our planet that creates its defensive field is rarer than we imagine, and as such it is much harder for life to have time to bake. taken to the extreme, the question may be, now many planets can survive four to five billion years, in a safe rural area of a galaxy, in the habitable (water) zone, while maintaining a spinning liquid iron core?


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 11:57:00 UTC

  • INTUITION IS UNDERSTOOD, SORRY. ITS NOT COMPLICATED —“Any thoughts on empirici

    INTUITION IS UNDERSTOOD, SORRY. ITS NOT COMPLICATED

    —“Any thoughts on empiricism ever incorporating intuition into its epistemology? It is, though not yet understood, a sensory experience.”—Jarrod Marma

    I don’t make errors. Operational simplification: Sensation(nerves), perception(cortex), integration (entorhinal cortex), experience(hippocampal region), auto-association( hippocampal subregion), attention (thalamus), projection(frontal cortex), retention (prefrontal cortex), recursion (repeat).

    intuition = auto association (involuntary), free association(voluntary focus of attention)

    If you read testimonialism you will find that I’ve repeated it for years now.

    sense(stimulation), perception (disambiguation), auto-association, free association, hypothesis(reason), theory(empiricism), law(survival), recursion(partial falsification).

    The brain (you) consists of a nervous system consisting almost entirely of variations on one cell type (neuron) of different compositions for different functions, the most numerous variation of which is (surprisingly) inhibition of information, the most influential of which are one type which calculate information.

    We cannot make computeres do the same thing at the same cost because in exchange for perfect memory, computers use fixed wiring and dynamic routing, where your brain uses both dynamic wiring and with it dynamic routing. So we have vast adaptability, and storage in exchange for recreation of memories through associations, whereas computers have precise recollection, l limited adaptability, and require far more physical storage because they have to store all the underlying sensory data. Current computer neural networks learn and no longer need to retain the sensory data they were trained with but they cannot be adapted to additional functions without training and re-structuring (yet). There are very good at single things so the future will likely consist of many basic functions performed by aritificial neural networks, combined by a ‘grammar’ into a hierarchy of neural netowrks. our ‘grammar’ is spatial – because we must act. That does not mean computers will need a spatial grammar as well, because we might design it to act by different means – but I can’t concieve yet of an alternative other than property transactions, which are then handed off too another AI to act upon.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 11:13:00 UTC

  • NO YOU’RE WRONG There is only one most parsimonious grammar of physical reality,

    NO YOU’RE WRONG

    There is only one most parsimonious grammar of physical reality, and that’s the physics. There is only one most parsimonious grammar of life, and that’s conservation of energy; There is only one most parsimonious grammar of sentient life: and thats economics. There is only one most parsimonious grammar of ‘the grammars themselves’. There is only one most parsimonious grammar of history of human life: that’s the use of the grammars for the production of economics. There is no interpretation of history any more than there is interpretation of entropy, the conservation of energy, productivity, reciprocity, or testimony.

    in other words, all human history can be expressed as success or failure to defeat the red queen by using the grammars to organize production and cooperation we call economy.

    There is one science, one biochemistry, one set of grammars, and one economics, and one history written in them.

    There is history proper or lying.

    Period.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 10:56:00 UTC

  • THERE IS NO FERMI PARADOX As in all things there is no paradox, just an open que

    THERE IS NO FERMI PARADOX

    As in all things there is no paradox, just an open question, no paradoxes exist.

    One can falsify the fermi question. It is falsifiable.We have failed to falsify it.

    One cannot disprove, only fail to provide a proof of possibility in an axiomatic system like mathematics, and reality is a theoretic system, not axiomatic.

    At present it is falsifiable, un-falsified, and undecidable, and therefore all we can say is that “we don’t know yet”.

    The most obvious reasons are:

    1 – Technological (EMR is a primitive technology)

    2 – Differences are such that we would be of no trading (cooperative) value; interfering would only create a competitor; and it is too early for a colonization effort to have reached us given the recent development of EMR broadcasting.

    3 – Time and distance window of opportunity

    4 – We are in a calm location between arms, in a calm (dying) galaxy, and have had long enough period of growth to ‘bake’ in necessary conditions

    5 – I am concerned that the spinning liquid iron core of our planet that creates its defensive field is rarer than we imagine, and as such it is much harder for life to have time to bake. taken to the extreme, the question may be, now many planets can survive four to five billion years, in a safe rural area of a galaxy, in the habitable (water) zone, while maintaining a spinning liquid iron core?


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 10:36:00 UTC

  • WHY IS NATURAL LAW A LAW OF NATURE? (A well intentioned person conducts a conven

    WHY IS NATURAL LAW A LAW OF NATURE?

    (A well intentioned person conducts a conventional argument giving us an opportunity to educate common people)

    —“”[what] inescapable law of the natural law[?’” You have a penchant for manufacturing spooks. Where is this so called “natural law”? I have looked everywhere, I have observed my surroundings and I have not located it.”— Gyeff Strife

    Then, unfortunately, you observe poorly. πŸ˜‰

    —“Imagine the following: I have a friend. I ask him to turn around. I have deceptively acquired his trust, therefore he turns around. At this opportunity, I stab my friend in the back. We are only friends in the mind of the now deceased, who was a dullard. In my mind he was a competitor. Now tell me, will a divine bolt of lightning come and strike me where I stand? If no such lightning occurs then your “natural law” is an illusion. … You may say I’ve broken your natural law in spite of no lightning, yet I am walking about a free man (now with one fewer competitor), of what consequence is breaking or not breaking the natural law? … You may say that your collection of dogmatists will come and duel me and they will win due to a numbers advantage. But, I ask, what logic was used to convince the first dogmatist of the existence of “natural law”, in the absence of a dogmatist collective? … There is circular logic: The law exists because there are enforcers of the law; there are enforcers of the law because the law exists.”— Gyeff Strife

    Great example.

    If you try to violate the physical law of gravity by wishing you can fly, and jumping from a height, you will pay the price for it. If you violate the natural law of reciprocity within an in-group by earning trust, and harming one with whom you have engaged in a reciprocal exchange of non-imposition of costs we call ‘trust’, then if you violate that natural law of reciprocity (a) if the person whom you stab lives, he will retaliate, and likely retaliate using altruistic punishment meaning he will escalate to even greater punishment (retaliation) in order to preserve the group value of reciprocity; and certain the group with whom you have exchanged the promise of reciprocity for membership, will also punish you. In fact if you try, you will have a very hard time trying to discover (a) any violation of rational (reasonable) choice (bounded rationality), and (b) any violation of reciprocity. this is because it is a violation of the laws of nature: parasitism is intolerable for a life form, just as cooperation if possible, is an intolerable loss for a life form.

    The DIfference: The physical universe is deterministic and doesn’t have memory, potential to multi-forecast, and choice among forecasts. Humans have memory and choice, so that there is a time delay to human reaction in the natural law of man, that there is not in physical laws of nature. That does not mean that man is any different from nature. It means only that the same forces are delayed such that we can chose to capture the highest returns on energy we can imagine, rather than the first available that we cannot avoid capturing – wich is nature’s limitation we have overcome.

    —” … you have a penchant for manufacturing spooks.”— Gyeff Strife

    I have a penchant for avoiding ‘making words up’ in the continental model, and for prohibiting abrahamic sophism, pseudo-moralism, pseudoscience and supernaturalism by using disambiguation, serialization, and operationalization of existing terms instead. In this case the long history of Aristotle’s, the Church’s, and the Scientific Enlightenment term ‘Natural Law” – meaning necessary law whose violation is harmful (via-negativa) and whose observation is beneficial (via positiva) “living in harmony with nature” just like, in reductio, if we try to violate the law of gravity it will be harmful.

    This natural law is in evidence by every test available to man including the history of legal dispute resolution throughout all of recorded human history; the evolutionary necessity the natural law due to the laws of nature (physics), and due to the evidence of recorded human moral intuitions, recorded human retaliations, and our inability to circumvent it in subjective testing regardless of example.

    So just as all human action is rational (reasonable) within the limits of bounded rationality, and physical demands, so is the natural law of reciprocity is universal, and we can find NO examples otherwise – including any pretense of the existence of altruism. Reciprocity: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, demonstrated by action or inaction, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests, demonstrated by action or inaction, of others of one’s group also engaged in reciprocity with the actor.

    Ergo, as in this example, I have a penchant for testimonial truth in which I have used disambiguation, serialization, and operationalization, to disambiguate and define terms such that they function as systems of *measurement* at maximum humanly possible precision given our current knowledge, and no ‘analogies’ enable ‘putting one’s finger on the scale’ to lie (as did Boas, Marx, freud, cantor, adorno et all, derrida et al, rothbard et all, feminists et all, neocons et al – the second attempt at destruction of the cooperation between the classes by the use of abrahamic deceit to generate envy, using the false promise that any other political and economic organization is possible or superior in results for all.

    —“You say that there is no “we”, however, this sentiment appears to me to be inauthentic because simultaneously you mention “crimes against humanity”, “human life”, and “human civilization”. Of what consequence is the plight of humanity to “me”. If all of humanity becomes extinct a single moment after my death, am I impacted in any way? Furthermore, you suggest that the spreading of ignorance is a negative, however, if my competitor wallows in ignorance, is he not easier to exploit by me?”— Gyeff Strife

    It is hard to teach people disambiguation serialization operationalization and competitive falsification, leaving only the best truth candidates surviving, because it’s more expensive than justification, which is the easiest and most primitive means of human reasoning – wayfinding. Because wayfinding is a pre-rational process of the lower cortical religions. And so we do it by intuition.

    DISCIPLINE

    The fact that you are ignorant of the long history of the natural law, ignorant of the long history of the law, apparently ignorant of mathematics, and logic; ignorant of the techniques by which lies are created; and likely ignorant of the continuous pattern of transformations between the fundamental, the quantum, the particle, the element, the molecule, the organic molecule, the protein all the way up to sentience, consciousness, reason, and calculation is rather obvious – because you read literature (fantasy) rather than science.

    You don’t know my place in intellectual history, nor do you yet have a sense of the movement I and others have created, but I am, and we are, the reformation of the natural law, upon which western law depends, that has evolved to prosecute the crimes of the marxists, feminists, and postmodernists, in their attempt to violate the natural law of reciprocity, by the second attempt at the destruction of western civilization, the first time with judaism to undermine, christianity to weaken, and islam to conquer, using false promise, baitingin into moral hazard, profiting from hazard, and hiding under the cover of moral pretense, in order to reverse evolution and restore us to dysgenic, egalitarian, maternal, poverty of the herd, prior to the indo european invention of eugenic, hierarchical, meritocratic, pathernal, wealth.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-27 10:35:00 UTC

  • At present we deduce that a difference in fundamental charges is producing a sub

    … At present we deduce that a difference in fundamental charges is producing a subsequent difference in fundamental charge distributions that we call quantum fields, and a distribution of temporary density of that quantum field we call a particle.

    And by repeating this process of a difference in the pattern of charges, particles form combinations we call atoms or elements, elements form chemicals ,chemicals form molecules, molecules that include carbon produce biochemical molecules, biochemical molecules form proteins, proteins produce molecules necessary for cells, cells produce other cells, cells produce organs, organs produce organisms, organisms produce nervous systems, nervous systems produce memories, memories produce predictions, predictions product choices, and there we go.

    The entirety of the ‘grammar’ of the universe is – similar to binary or ternary logic – a difference in charges, whose change we call entropy: the tendency of all charges to equilibrate from order caused by differences in charges, to the disorder – the minimum difference in charges possible. …


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-26 14:52:00 UTC

  • SET MATH, OPERATIONS, AND QUANTUM MECHANICS —“I suspect because in set theory

    SET MATH, OPERATIONS, AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

    —“I suspect because in set theory and calculus infinities are the bleeding edge of the discipline, in the same way that paradoxes are the bleeding edge of logics and, to put it more operationally, black holes are the bleeding edge of astrophysics. That makes them the more interesting structures of analysis for participants. It’s an artifact of human psychology and its natural salience ranking.”–Duke Newcomb

    Sure. They’re the bleeding edges in post sense-perception phenomenon, and a misapplication of that method of investigation within sense- perception-phenomenon. πŸ˜‰

    Just as logic is only falsificationary within simple verbal and conceptual terms, and operations within simple actable terms, and empiricism within post-actionable terms, so what you’re really saying is the bleeding edge of the application of mathematical physics to questions that re not solvable with mathematical physics. πŸ˜‰

    It’s how we claim something is a science via positiva. Except they have it backwards. testimony is the top of the epistemological pyramid and everything else – every other system of calculation no matter how we perform it before reducing it to subjectively testiable differences in constant relations.

    For example, as far as I know the reason we’re blocked at the quantum level with particle-wave duality is because we haven’t an operational geometric model for the representation of front of the wave (particle location) in some underlying geometric form.

    So, for example, We did get Minsky to make the point that operational logic was a new method of thought; we got chomsky to sort of make the loose expression of continuous recursive disambiguation – I’m not really sure (I think not) that he understood or understand the implications – that all speech is falsificationary (disambiguation: carving away stone of ambiguity, not building with clay of meaning). And we did get Mandelbrot to demonstrate it with post-human-computability; And we did get Wolfram out there trying (poorly) to achieve it in mathematics, and biologists trying to achieve it in protein folding.

    But I have yet to see anyone trying use operations, and geometry, to explain how tetrahedrons (the smallest possible three dimensional set of fields) can rearrange in some combination that produces charged strings of tetrahedrons in some combination, that would in fact explain the wave particle duality.

    I have on the other hand seen people discuss it but they’re trying mathematically instead of learning from Turing, Mandelbrot, and Wolfrom that ‘averages’ produce in formula do not produce forking states other than ‘string’s (waves of changes in state through a network of tetrahedrons) that in turn would produce both waves and momentary particles. Now this is rather obvious to me as an operationalist, but every time you get someone talking about quantum mechanics they’re using averages which cannot express causes only consequences.

    String theory does not require 11 dimensions, it requires some underlying structure in which forces accumulate into 11 axis of causation (positive or negative charge or pressure) dependent upon the possible means of organizing a network of three dimensionally constrained charges.

    Lisi’s work is interesting because he’s identified the problem of the charges missing, but it might simply be that those combinations are’t possible to construct with available organizations of the underlying tetrahedrons (or some other triangular shape, even if they are circular charges that can only be arranged in triangular relations etc. Circles (spheres) of charges also solve the problem of three dimensions, the tetrahedral (or hexagonal or whatever) organization of the charges may only be an effect of the directions of spin.

    Whatever the underlying geometry is we already know it’s set expression (quantum fields) but we do not know its existential expression – geometry and operations possible on geometry.

    And as far as I know we can’t possibly measure such a thing so the only way of coming up with it is finding some set of geometric relations that through a limited grammar of possible organization, either temporary or consistent, produce what we call strings, which constitute the charged (altered) state of the underlying geometry, which we observe as a probability distribution in quantum mechanics, and which as a consequence of our ignorance is preventing us from explaining the relationship between quantum mechanics and general relativity – I suspect, because, we are looking for particles or fields that produce gravity when instead, it’s just distortion of the underlying geometry, in which there is no evidentiary change expressed in detectable particles because all gravity is the negative expression of charges that distort the underlying geometry.

    ANd it is very hard to think like this if you have had your entire cognitive structure trained to think of sets (verbal averages), and mathematics (verbal averages) rather than geometry(reality).


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-25 14:28:00 UTC

  • SEE THE STUPID SH-T I HAVE TO PUT UP WITH? The world is full of these idiots. —

    SEE THE STUPID SH-T I HAVE TO PUT UP WITH?

    The world is full of these idiots.

    —“Curt Doolittle You wrote <<The only thing entropy depends upon is a difference in charge>> As soon as you admit entropy depends on anything, you have already disproven the statement you are trying unsuccessfully to defend – viz. “Entropy is the prime mover.” Game over.”—Prem Prayojan

    That’s false right?

    Entropy is the name we give to the equilibration of differences in charges. Ergo it is a tautology (same by different words).

    Differences in charges exist. which tells us nothing about change. entropy tells us the consequence of change.

    Or we could say “the process in time we observe as entropy describes the state within time of a difference in charges, where all differences in charges are caused by a competition with other differences in charges that are organized differently.

    At present we deduce that a difference in fundamental charges is producing a consequent difference in fundamental charges that we call quantum fields, and a temporary density of that quantum field we call a particle. And by repeating this process of a difference in the pattern of charges, particles form combinations we call atoms or elements, elements form chemicals ,chemicals form molecules, molecules that include carbon produce biochemical molecules, biochemical molecules form proteins, proteins produce molecules necessary for cells, cells produce other cells, cells produce organs, organs produce organisms, organisms produce nervous systems, nervous systems produce memories, memories produce predictions, predictions product choices, and there we go. The entirety of the ‘grammar’ of the universe is – similar to binary or ternary logic – a difference in charges, whose change we call entropy: the tendency of all charges to equilibrate from order caused by differences in charges, to the disorder – the minimum difference in charges possible.

    So. As usual, I have just demonstrated the difference between verbal-linguistic sophisms made possible by imprecision by loose association permitting false deduction, induction, and abduction, versus verbal-linguistic testimony made possible by precision using operationalism, limiting false deduction, induction, and abduction.

    You are desperate. I understand. You have malinvested in a falsehood. You take pride (self image) in the explanatory power of your malinvestment, and you obtain undoubtably some social status by using such explanatory power of your malinvestment with other weak or dishonest minded people.

    But to anyone reading this it’s rather obvious that you just engaged in not only an error, not only a fallacy, but in a fraud, and a fraud perpetrated by sophism. Like the owner of a boat you have invested in a hole in the water into which you must throw further investment to maintain the prior malinvestment.

    I understand. I sympathize with your loss.

    But you chose poorly.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-25 10:29:00 UTC

  • There is nothing in psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy t

    There is nothing in psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy that is not readily expressible in economic terms – emotions and intuitions are nothing more than evolution providing us with information on how to acquire some sort of resource discounting our costs.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 14:42:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187378861903884288

    Reply addressees: @DegenRolf

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187378497934761987


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @DegenRolf So, women seek an equilibrium under which they increase access to in-group social opportunity, have the resources to do so, but are able to control the source of resources, through control of attention. Men with money monopolize attention, and increase women’s competition.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1187378497934761987


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @DegenRolf So, women seek an equilibrium under which they increase access to in-group social opportunity, have the resources to do so, but are able to control the source of resources, through control of attention. Men with money monopolize attention, and increase women’s competition.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1187378497934761987