Theme: Causality

  • YES THE EINSTEIN INDUSTRY IS CLOWNISH BUT CLAIMS HE DIDN”T INNOVATE ARE FALSE (A

    YES THE EINSTEIN INDUSTRY IS CLOWNISH BUT CLAIMS HE DIDN”T INNOVATE ARE FALSE
    (A complete analysis and judgement)

    OK. Let me clarify Einstein’s one causal insight that allowed him to produce his two important theories that provided vast utility in the understanding of the universe AND the I’ll explain how he screwed up physics as a consequence too. And that the discipline is still screwed up because of it. And then, if I have time, how to fix it and who is fixing it.

    1. The Reference Frame.
    Einstein applied the reference frame from classical mechanics to light, continuing the evolution of physics that began with the study of light.
    A reference frame is a system of coordinates used to describe the position, motion, and orientation of objects in space and time. In physics, the reference frame is crucial because the description of an object’s motion can vary depending on the frame of reference being used.

    These signifiant figures, among others, evolved the reference frame, ending with Einstein:
    Galileo Galilei (1564-1642): Galileo introduced the concept of inertial reference frames in his work on the principle of relativity. He stated that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames, and that there is no absolute frame of reference. This laid the groundwork for the later development of the concept of reference frames.
    Isaac Newton (1643-1727): Newton’s laws of motion, which form the basis of classical mechanics, are formulated in terms of reference frames. In his Principia, Newton discussed the idea of absolute space and time, which provided a fixed reference frame for the laws of motion.
    Leonhard Euler (1707-1783): Euler developed the concept of rigid body motion and introduced the idea of a body-fixed reference frame, which is a reference frame that moves with a rigid body.
    Joseph Louis Lagrange (1736-1813): Lagrange’s work on analytical mechanics, particularly his development of the Lagrangian formulation, made extensive use of generalized coordinates and reference frames.
    Gaspard Gustave de Coriolis (1792-1843): Coriolis introduced the concept of the Coriolis force, which is an apparent force that arises in rotating reference frames.

    Einstein’s First Simple Innovation:
    Einstein added (a) the constant and limited velocity of light to (b) the reference frame and produced (c) his theories of general and special relativity.

    Einstein’s major contributions to physics were not just the introduction of the frame of reference, but also the development of the theories of special and general relativity, which revolutionized our understanding of space, time, and gravity.

    Special relativity (1905): Einstein’s theory of special relativity introduced the concept that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames, and that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant regardless of the motion of the source or observer. This led to the famous equation E=mc², which expresses the equivalence of mass and energy. Special relativity also introduced the idea that time is not absolute but can dilate depending on the relative motion between the observer and the observed.

    General relativity (1915): Einstein’s theory of general relativity is a geometric theory of gravitation that extends special relativity to explain gravity as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime. This theory provided a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, and introduced the idea that massive objects cause spacetime to curve, which is felt as the force of gravity.

    While the concept of frames of reference was not new Einstein’s application of it in his work was innovative – just as all innovations in history consists of combinations of extant ideas to generate new ones, gradually building our knowledge one insight upon another.

    Einstein showed that the laws of physics must be consistent across all frames of reference, which led to the development of special relativity.

    In general relativity, he extended this idea to accelerating frames of reference and developed a geometric theory of gravity.

    Einstein’s theories were meaningful innovations because they provided a new framework for understanding space, time, and gravity that went beyond the classical mechanics of Newton.

    But this was ‘cheating’ a bit. 😉
    IMO, the use of light and waves continued the existing tradition common in physics. However, while Einstein solved the light problem and the relativity issues that result he did NOT solve the quantum backgroud problem.

    ‘Einstein’s Hand Waving’ (Pseudoscience)
    Instead he used ‘hand waving’ called ‘space-time’ by treating space as a sort of flexible analogy to a lens. In other words he correctly describe the behavioral TRAVEL of light and mass through space, but he did not solve the problem of what space consists of – which we now understand is the quantum background that is never truly empty, just at different levels of excitement (energy and temperature).

    The Problem with treating the universe this way?
    All this advanced mathematics (and while easy to describe the mathematics is (IMO) brutally painful and requires more working memory than most of us can manage to produce even with endless repetition. 😉
    The underlying issue is that the universe is constructed of discrete somethings, (think atoms of water) that act as discrete entities which, and Einstein’s mathematics treats the universe as continuous “I dunno what” that neither exists materially NOR is discreet AND still manages to bend motion of whatever goes through it (gravity).

    Mathiness
    So a whole army of jewish intellectuals re-platonized/re-mesopotamianized (verbal) mathematics, reversing the restoration of European mathematics by Descartes (operational) through Hilbert.
    The notable figures I refer to are Cantor(verbal, infinities), Einstein(Pictures, Fictional Spacetime), Bohr(Idealism, Verbalism, Abandon Materialism, Remain ignorant, “just calculate”).

    Thus the ‘devolution’ of (masculine) European mathematics, physics, discrete materialism to (feminine) Ashkenazi verbal mathematics, pictoral physics, and fictional continuousness.

    Again, at the margins this polar difference is evident in sex differences in higher cognition. And the two intellectual elite groups in the world, the Europeans and the Ashkenazi Europeans hybrids reflect these sex differences in cognition. Something which explains much more than you’d assume about the twentieth century’s collapse of scientific innovation despite rapid advancements in technological innovation dependent upon earlier innovations.)

    So we call this and many other misunderstandings that we are not conscious of: ‘Mathiness’. Meaning, the treatment of mathematics as a verbal construct rather than a symbolic language of operations on ratios.

    So;
    Yes there is an Einstein industry.
    Yes it is far overblown for postwar political reasons we all understand.
    Yes he made a minor innovation by combining two existing concepts from a long sequence of accumulated knowledge produced by others.
    BUT;
    Yes his innovation allowed him to produce two major innovations in the behavior of light, which we could then expand to the use of light to understand the structure of the universe.
    AND;
    Yes he and others also reversed the existential, operational, material, (masculine), European tradition (once again), and created generations of useless pseudoscience in doing so.
    No he did not recognize he was doing it any more than women recognize they are destroying civilization with their pursuit of care by enabling irresponsibility for private and common.
    No, unless epistemologists like myself diagnose and explain these matters, it’s hard to hold people accountable for what is effectively genetic instinct with cultural reinforcement.
    The example being semitic verbal pilpul and critique, and the search for agreement independent of truth thus evading liability, instead of European material evidentiary testimony and evidentiary falsification, and the search for truth upon which agreement may be constructed along with liability and accountabilty for consequence.
    (That sentence right there explains Semitic vs European ethics.)

    THEREFORE;
    The problem is that europeans do not defend against the feminine because we are not aware it, because our traditions are (aside from christianity) almost entirely masculine, and our metaphysics the opposite of the feminine.

    In other words, if your attack on Einstein’s legacy consists of reverse-propaganda, that’s sort of fine in a way, because there is a grain of truth in it – even if it’s not the grain of truth you think of. He really did produce an innovation, but mostly the innovations were in his application of that simple innovation.

    So the lesson is, that now that we know the underlying cause of the problem of the masculine vs feminine conflict of our civilizations, and the vast damage that can result from the devolutionary thought of the feminine, it’s our responsibility to take the responsibility for self defense, by proposing and instituting laws that prevent the ‘pseudoscience’ of the feminine verbal and seditious even though the feminine does not recognize it’s seditious and destructive.

    And I have don the work to do that: equally suppress the feminine antisocial behavior conscious or not as we have the masculine. 😉

    Its very hard to solve these problems, and that’s because they are very difficult to disentangle from our metaphysical presumptions endemic to our genetics and our cultures.

    If it were easy, someone would have done it already. I was only able to do it because science has advanced so rapidly in genetics and neuroscience, and evidence has accumulated in economic behavior, and the internet has rapidly decreased the time necessary to access the vast body of scientific knowledge.

    Affections.
    Please let me know if you have any intellectually honest, respectfully asked questions. 😉

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-22 20:41:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782509970078011392

  • “Random is what we call the unpredictable but it’s deterministic all the way dow

    —“Random is what we call the unpredictable but it’s deterministic all the way down.”– Martin Štěpán @AutistocratMS https://twitter.com/AutistocratMS/status/1782491014306889910

  • RT @curtdoolittle: @cryptodiaries @swpwilliams @alessabocchi —“Your causal rel

    RT @curtdoolittle: @cryptodiaries @swpwilliams @alessabocchi —“Your causal relationship is wrong. It’s not Women’s Rights -> Prosperity.…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-22 20:00:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782499648512438593

  • “Your causal relationship is wrong. It’s not Women’s Rights -> Prosperity. It’s

    —“Your causal relationship is wrong. It’s not Women’s Rights -> Prosperity. It’s Prosperity -> Women’s rights. Just like Racism does not lead to differential performance. Differential performance sometimes leads to racism.”– @cryptodiaries

    We all make mistakes. But I rarely err, and I do not in this circumstance.
    If you had any concept of the national or civilizational balance sheet of demonstrated interests in the spectrum of capital, you would never make such a foolish statement.
    I see from your fourth sentence
    1. race observation is correct
    2. you’re presuming it’s a matter of differential performance rather than differential instinct between sex differences in cognition and the result.
    3. You’re also incorrect in the first three sentences because it is precisely prosperity that leads to women’s rights and economic contribution. But you’re not stating that it leads to intertemporal institutional hazards, vastly expanding consumption and the negative consequences, the illusion of endless growth, the expansion of debt to accommodate it all, and the destruction of all organizations from social to educational, to economic to political because of this sequence of hyperconsumption WITHOUT the demand for responsibility for capital accumulation and preservation both in and across time.

    I suspect you may be smart enough to understand this but that you might need exposition for the purpose of clarification, so please ask if necessary. But under no circumstances assume I err (I don’t), and instead, seek to understand, such that we may find fault with either person’s understanding or communication.

    Affections;
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Reply addressees: @cryptodiaries @swpwilliams @alessabocchi


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-22 19:59:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782499609882906624

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782482915374338129

  • THE UNIVERSE, AND ALL IN IT, IS EVEN MORE SIMPLE THAN WE ASSUMED. And we humans

    THE UNIVERSE, AND ALL IN IT, IS EVEN MORE SIMPLE THAN WE ASSUMED.
    And we humans are at the bleeding edge of evolutionary computation of complexity.

    RE: –“Entropy does not decrease”– @curtraymond
    That’s absolutely false. 😉

    That’s what matter consists of: increases in organization by increases in density (negative entropy).

    One might say that entropy never ceases, but that doesn’t mean that the by product of entropy isn’t all of material existence and it’s effects until all the energy in the universe settles to the zero point (dead).

    Matter accumulates by the ternary logic of evolutionary computation, which can easily be illustrated with Markov Chains.

    Something which Stephen Wolfram @stephen_wolfram is doing in his research and development work: evolutionary computation by competition between hierarchies of randomly processing Markov chains – with which he is quite successfully demonstrating the determinism of the universe’s constitution and ending the theory of the ‘finely tuned’ universe, and consequently putting another stake in the vampire heart of creationism.

    And no I don’t err. We all make mistakes. But I very rarely err. And in this case I certainly do not. ;). Why? The universe is quite simple. almost disturbingly so, and certainly humbling. 😉

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Reply addressees: @curtraymond @ScottAdamsSays


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-22 19:48:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782496696296992768

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782493225686630568

  • THE HIERARCHY OF CYCLES (SOME OF THEM) 1. Cognition and Recovery cycles (Work an

    THE HIERARCHY OF CYCLES (SOME OF THEM)
    1. Cognition and Recovery cycles (Work and Recovery)
    2. Learning and Forgetting Curves (Adaptation)
    3. Fashion Cycles (Novelty and Status)
    4. Culture Cycles (Sortition and Status)
    5. Economic Cycles (Opportunities to Cooperate)
    6. Generational Cycles (Agency and Status)
    7. and Civilizational Cycles (Opportunities to Cooperate)

    COGNITIVE ENDURANCE CYCLES
    The concept of individual differences in attention span and cognitive endurance is well-established in the field of psychology and has significant implications for learning. Several theories and models have been proposed to explain these differences:
    (a) Expenditure
    Cognitive Load Theory (John Sweller, 1988):
    This theory suggests that learning is hampered when the cognitive load (the amount of mental effort required to process information) exceeds an individual’s working memory capacity.
    Some learners may have a higher tolerance for cognitive load, allowing them to concentrate for longer periods without experiencing mental fatigue.
    Attention Restoration Theory (Stephen Kaplan, 1995):
    This theory proposes that prolonged mental effort leads to directed attention fatigue, which can be restored through exposure to natural environments or other restorative experiences.
    Individuals with better attention restoration abilities may be able to concentrate for longer periods without experiencing exhaustion.
    Self-Regulated Learning (Barry Zimmerman, 1989):
    This model emphasizes the role of metacognition, motivation, and strategic action in learning. Effective self-regulated learners are able to monitor their own cognitive states and adjust their learning strategies accordingly.
    Learners with strong self-regulation skills may be better equipped to manage their attention and persist in the face of frustration or fatigue.
    Working Memory Capacity (Alan Baddeley and Graham Hitch, 1974):
    Working memory refers to the cognitive system responsible for temporarily holding and manipulating information during complex cognitive tasks.
    Individuals with higher working memory capacity may be able to process more information simultaneously and maintain concentration for longer periods.
    Personality Traits and Temperament:
    Personality traits such as conscientiousness, grit (Angela Duckworth, 2007), and self-control (Walter Mischel, 1972) have been linked to persistence and the ability to sustain effort in the face of challenges.
    Temperamental differences, such as those described by the “effortful control” dimension in Mary Rothbart’s theory of temperament (1989), may also contribute to individual variations in attention and cognitive endurance.
    (b) Recovery:
    The time needed to recover from cognitive load and mental fatigue varies among individuals and depends on several factors, such as the intensity and duration of the cognitive task, the individual’s cognitive capacity, and the effectiveness of their recovery strategies. While there is no single, universally accepted time frame for cognitive recovery, several theories and research findings offer insights into this process:

    Ultradian Rhythms:
    Nathaniel Kleitman (1963) proposed that the human body operates on 90-120 minute biological cycles called ultradian rhythms, which alternate between periods of high and low alertness.
    This concept was further popularized by Ernest Rossi (1991), who suggested that taking a break every 90-120 minutes can help optimize cognitive performance and reduce mental fatigue.
    Microbreaks and Recovery:
    Studies have shown that taking short breaks (e.g., 5-10 minutes) during prolonged cognitive tasks can help maintain performance and reduce fatigue (Henning et al., 1997; Tucker, 2003).
    These microbreaks can involve brief physical activity, relaxation techniques, or simply disengaging from the task at hand.
    Sleep and Cognitive Recovery:
    Sleep plays a crucial role in cognitive recovery and memory consolidation (Stickgold, 2005; Walker, 2009). A full night’s sleep (7-9 hours for adults) is often necessary for complete cognitive recovery after a day of mentally demanding activities.
    Naps, particularly those that include slow-wave sleep (around 60-90 minutes), have also been shown to provide cognitive benefits and support recovery from mental fatigue (Mednick et al., 2003).
    Attention Restoration Theory:
    As mentioned earlier, Attention Restoration Theory (Kaplan, 1995) suggests that exposure to natural environments or other restorative experiences can help reduce mental fatigue and improve cognitive performance.
    The time needed for attention restoration may vary depending on the individual and the quality of the restorative experience, but research suggests that even short exposures (e.g., 10-15 minutes) to nature can provide cognitive benefits (Berman et al., 2008).
    Individual Differences and Recovery:
    Individual factors such as age, physical fitness, and cognitive reserve can influence the time needed for cognitive recovery (Stern, 2009; Hillman et al., 2008).
    Additionally, the use of effective coping strategies, such as stress management techniques and social support, can help facilitate recovery from mental fatigue (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007)

    LEARNING AND FORGETTING CYCLES
    there are various theoretical perspectives on the time frames associated with the adoption of habits, learning, mastery, and recovery from trauma. Let’s explore some of these ideas:

    Habit formation (3-4 weeks):
    In his book “The Power of Habit” (2012), Charles Duhigg popularized the idea that habits can be formed in 21 days, based on a passage from Maxwell Maltz’s “Psycho-Cybernetics” (1960).
    More recent research, such as Phillippa Lally’s study “How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world” (2010), suggests that the average time for habit formation is 66 days, with a range of 18 to 254 days, depending on the complexity of the habit and individual differences.
    Adoption of frames of reference in learning (3-4 years):
    Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development proposes that children go through four stages, each lasting several years. The preoperational stage (ages 2-7) is characterized by the development of symbolic thinking and language, which shape a child’s understanding of the world.
    Lev Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory emphasizes the role of social interaction and cultural tools in cognitive development. His concept of the “zone of proximal development” suggests that learning occurs through the guidance of more knowledgeable others, a process that extends over several years.
    Mastery of a discipline (10,000 hours or 10 years):
    In his book “Outliers” (2008), Malcolm Gladwell popularized the idea that it takes roughly 10,000 hours of deliberate practice to achieve mastery in a field, based on research by Anders Ericsson.
    However, the exact time frame for mastery varies depending on the domain and individual factors. For example, in their paper “The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance” (1993), Ericsson and colleagues found that elite musicians had accumulated an average of 10,000 hours of practice by age 20.
    Recovery from trauma (3-4 years):
    Judith Herman’s book “Trauma and Recovery” (1992) outlines three stages of trauma recovery: safety, remembrance and mourning, and reconnection. She suggests that this process typically takes several years, with individual variations.

    FASHION CYCLES
    Several theorists have proposed explanations for shorter-term cycles in areas such as fashion, consumer behavior, and popular culture. Some notable examples include:
    Everett Rogers (1931-2004): In his book “Diffusion of Innovations” (1962), Rogers proposed a model for how new ideas and products spread through a population. His model includes five adopter categories: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards.
    Henrik Vejlgaard (contemporary): In his book “Anatomy of a Trend” (2008), Vejlgaard proposed a “Diamond-Shaped Trend Model” to describe how trends in fashion, design, and culture move through different segments of society, from trendsetters to mainstream consumers.
    Dick Hebdige (1951-): In his book “Subculture: The Meaning of Style” (1979), Hebdige examined the cyclical nature of youth subcultures and their styles, arguing that they emerge as forms of resistance but are eventually co-opted by mainstream culture.
    Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929): In his book “The Theory of the Leisure Class” (1899), Veblen introduced the concept of “conspicuous consumption,” arguing that the wealthy consume highly visible goods to display their status. This behavior trickles down to lower classes, driving fashion cycles.
    Georg Simmel (1858-1918): Simmel, a German sociologist and philosopher, wrote about fashion cycles in his essay “Fashion” (1904). He argued that fashion is driven by the dual desires for individuality and conformity, leading to a cyclical process of innovation and imitation.
    Alfred Kroeber (1876-1960): Kroeber, an American anthropologist, studied women’s fashion between 1844 and 1936. In his paper “On the Principle of Order in Civilization as Exemplified by Changes of Fashion” (1919), he identified regular cycles in dress length and width.
    Paul Nystrom (1878-1969): Nystrom, an American marketing scholar, proposed a theory of fashion adoption in his book “Economics of Fashion” (1928). He argued that fashion moves through stages of introduction, acceptance, and obsolescence.

    POPULAR CULTURE CYCLES
    Popular culture, which encompasses music, film, television, and other forms of mass media entertainment, also exhibits cyclical patterns. Several theorists have examined these cycles from different perspectives:
    Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980): McLuhan, a media theorist, proposed that the medium of communication itself shapes the content and impact of popular culture. In his book “Understanding Media” (1964), he argued that the rise of electronic media would lead to a “global village” and a retribalization of society, altering the cycles of popular culture.
    George Lipsitz (1944-): In his book “Time Passages: Collective Memory and American Popular Culture” (1990), Lipsitz examined how popular culture reflects and shapes collective memory. He argued that popular culture cycles are tied to larger social and political cycles, serving as a site of struggle over meaning and identity.
    Simon Reynolds (1963-): In his book “Retromania: Pop Culture’s Addiction to Its Own Past” (2011), Reynolds analyzed the increasing tendency of popular music and culture to recycle and revive past styles. He argued that this “retromania” is a product of digital technology, cultural nostalgia, and the exhaustion of innovation.
    Jean Baudrillard (1929-2007): Baudrillard, a postmodern theorist, argued that in contemporary society, reality has been replaced by simulations and signs. In his book “Simulacra and Simulation” (1981), he suggested that popular culture cycles are part of a larger process of “hyperreality,” where the distinction between the real and the imaginary is blurred.
    Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002): In his book “Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste” (1979), Bourdieu examined how cultural preferences and practices, including engagement with popular culture, are shaped by social class and education. He argued that cultural cycles are tied to the reproduction of social hierarchy.

    ECONOMIC CYCLES
    Economic cycle theories, such as the Kondratiev wave, also known as the long wave or K-wave, propose that capitalist economies go through long-term cycles of boom and bust. The most notable theorists in this area include:
    Nikolai Kondratiev (1892-1938): Kondratiev was a Russian economist who identified long economic cycles lasting 50-60 years. He argued that these cycles consisted of alternating periods of high and low growth, and were driven by technological innovations.
    Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950): Schumpeter built upon Kondratiev’s work and proposed that these long waves were driven by clusters of technological innovations, which he termed “creative destruction.” He argued that the boom and bust cycles were an inherent part of the capitalist system.
    Simon Kuznets (1901-1985): Kuznets identified medium-term economic cycles lasting 15-25 years, now known as Kuznets swings or cycles. These cycles were related to infrastructure investments, such as construction and transportation.
    Clement Juglar (1819-1905): Juglar identified short-term business cycles lasting 7-11 years, characterized by periods of economic expansion followed by periods of recession.
    Ralph Nelson Elliott (1871-1948): Elliott developed the Elliott Wave Theory, which proposes that financial markets move in repeating, fractal-like patterns driven by investor psychology. While not strictly an economic cycle theory, it is often applied to the analysis of stock markets and other financial instruments.

    GENERATIONAL CYCLES
    In their book “The Fourth Turning,” William Strauss and Neil Howe refer to the ancient Roman concept of “saeculum” when discussing generational cycles.

    A “saeculum” was a long human lifetime, which ancient Romans believed was the maximum length of time it took for a generation to be born, come of age, grow old, and then die out. They believed that this cycle repeated itself in a recurring pattern.

    Strauss and Howe adapted this concept to their theory of generational cycles in American history. They argue that each saeculum lasts about 80 to 90 years, encompassing four generations or “turnings,” each lasting around 20-22 years.
    These four turnings are:
    The High
    The Awakening
    The Unraveling
    The Crisis
    According to their theory, as each generation ages and moves through the four stages of life (childhood, young adulthood, midlife, and elderhood), their collective attitudes and behaviors shape the mood and direction of the nation, leading to the rise and fall of institutional life and the rhythms of history.

    CIVILIZATION CYCLES
    Several theorists have proposed various theories about the cyclical nature of civilizations throughout history. Some of the most notable ones include:
    Oswald Spengler (1880-1936): In his book “The Decline of the West,” Spengler proposed that civilizations have a natural lifespan and go through cycles of birth, growth, maturity, and decline.
    Arnold J. Toynbee (1889-1975): In his 12-volume work “A Study of History,” Toynbee argued that civilizations rise and fall in response to external and internal challenges.
    Pitirim Sorokin (1889-1968): In his book “Social and Cultural Dynamics,” Sorokin proposed that societies oscillate between three cultural mentalities: ideational, sensate, and idealistic.
    Carroll Quigley (1910-1977): In his book “The Evolution of Civilizations,” Quigley proposed that civilizations go through seven stages of development: mixture, gestation, expansion, age of conflict, universal empire, decay, and invasion.
    Samuel P. Huntington (1927-2008): In his book “The Clash of Civilizations,” Huntington proposed that in the post-Cold War world, conflicts would arise primarily from cultural and religious differences between civilizations.
    Neil Howe and William Strauss (b. 1947 and 1947-2007, respectively): In their books “Generations” and “The Fourth Turning,” they propose a cyclical theory of history based on repeating generational archetypes and cycles called “saecula.”
    Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406): This Arab historian proposed a cyclical theory of the rise and fall of civilizations in his book “The Muqaddimah,” based on the concept of “asabiyyah” or social cohesion.

    Closing
    So there you have a sampling of the hierarchy of cycles that begin with individual differences in cognition and result in the collective consequence of those differences at different time frames.

    Cheers,
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Reply addressees: @Kamuela


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-22 18:43:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782480401929269248

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782468790388736097

  • Probably should say that the cause of human behavior requires it’s two sides of

    Probably should say that the cause of human behavior requires it’s two sides of the coin:
    Acquisition < by self determination < by ((+)positiva of agency and (-)negativa absence of constraint)


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-19 18:39:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1781392283411046426

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1781382879387263031

  • Probably should say that the cause of human behavior requires it’s two sides of

    Probably should say that the cause of human behavior requires it’s two sides of the coin:
    Acquisition < by self determination < by ((+)positiva of agency and (-)negativa absence of constraint)


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-19 18:39:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1781392283356594176

  • Read my explanation. It’s a statement of the first cause of universal human beha

    Read my explanation.
    It’s a statement of the first cause of universal human behavior. We may seek self determination (power) by different means but we are all seeking self determination (power). Even if it is (as current elites demonstrate) at the expense of others by depriving…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-19 18:17:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1781386534219870568

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1781382772419878968

  • Yes. Though that doesn’t mean it’s not a biological cause, nor that the presumpt

    Yes. Though that doesn’t mean it’s not a biological cause, nor that the presumption that it’s an immune system response during early gestation and for some reason doesn’t cause miscarriage is erroneous. I’m interested in why it doesn’t cause miscarriage. Something is to be…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-18 00:00:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780748302645961197

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780738838140166474