Theme: Causality

  • “Newton screwed physics by pushing a non-mechanistic theory of gravity, which le

    –“Newton screwed physics by pushing a non-mechanistic theory of gravity, which led to increasing mathiness in physics up to the modern day. Huygens and his student Liebniz were skeptical, being mechanical philosophers in the tradition of Descartes.”–@LiminalRev

    Correct, though I might argue that in general the direction was correcting, but Einstein and Bohr weren’t (sufficiently) corrected by Bridgman and Brouwer. The fact that Descartes restored mathematics from langauge to measurement, and in some sense brought about mathematical nominalism was poisoned.

    I like the term mechanical philosophers or mechanical mathematics, I use the term from the intuitionist-operationalist revolution, and so use the term ‘operational’. But the concept you’re referring to is the same.

    Under mathematical nominalism, mathematics is just an other (very limited) language (paradigm, vocabulary, grammar) of scale and context independence, a creation of the human mind, designed to categorize, quantify, and describe the empirical world. Mathematical terms and concepts are seen as useful fictions that facilitate understanding and communication about the natural world. Mathematical entities do not exist in any real sense but are merely names or labels for groups of objects or concepts. As such a science of measurement. Or in the literature “Empirical Mathematics”.

    Unfortunately there is a very human tendency to treat mathematical referents as existential, which then restores platonism, and that is what, I agree, newton, einstein, bohr, and for that matter, Cantor. Had Hilbert and Einstein not conversed, pressing Einstein to publish, Hilberty might have saved us from over fifty years of failed physics.

    Instead they ignore the quantum background (the aether) and invent a mathematical object space time and were no longer engaging in physics.

    Reply addressees: @LiminalRev


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-15 20:06:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746987286971973632

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746978136972050935

  • “It seems that information asymmetry is an important condition for accomplishmen

    –“It seems that information asymmetry is an important condition for accomplishment. Else systems equilibrate and dissipate energy rather than harness it. The more one wants to accomplish the more these modes are necessary even though they’re intrapersonal asymmetries.”–

    Correct. It (the universe and all in it) requires a difference (beginning with polarity and ‘ending’ with common political interests) to discover a stable relation that is a compromise between the extremes (equilibrium) that despite differences minimizes instability (failure of stable relations).

    Reply addressees: @go4th_m


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-15 18:23:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746961380542967808

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746956356526002201

  • “The common understanding of evolution is that it’s either random, or directed.

    –“The common understanding of evolution is that it’s either random, or directed. When in fact, it is undirected, and non-random. The laws of the universe are emergent.”–Brad Werrell

    Protagoras: Of all things man is the measure. In our work we call this concept Vitruvianism:…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-14 16:52:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746576030733599146

  • (Physics) TIME Well, time is fundamental because time must be fundamental, but o

    (Physics)
    TIME
    Well, time is fundamental because time must be fundamental, but only fundamental at some zero point: a given rate.
    The rate of time my vary from that zero point down to minimal time under some extraordinary conditions, or up to maximum time at equally but opposite extraordinary conditions.
    We just can’t as yet produce the instrumentation to test it. It would be interesting to consider the possibiilty of producing a set of atomic clocks and placing them in everyting from one of the universe’s great voids, to one of the universe’s great stellar densities (black or if they exist white holes), and from slow to near light speed, and then to retrieve and compare them. Not that it’ll ever be possible but the thought experiment helps us imagine theories. πŸ˜‰


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-14 15:17:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746552046164029440

  • There is nothing unnatural about logic. It is a necessary consequence of biologi

    There is nothing unnatural about logic. It is a necessary consequence of biological systems (nerves and neurons) compressing information by reducing the stimuli available in the natural world to catgories possible for the human body to act upon, by the process of organization by disambiguation into episodes of objects, spaces, and backgrounds, possible sets of action within them, and the valence available to any action.

    Speech and reasoning from speech is just another further compression of information.

    Language consists entirely of measurements. So, like episodes, we can reason “calculate” using those measurements.

    Writing and symbols are a further means of compression and retention – this is why pencil and paper are useful and necessary both for compensating for limits of retention and for compensation for short term memory limits.

    Reply addressees: @DieterKief


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-13 19:31:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746253765873684480

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746248944303108458

  • (the entire universe functions by one principle, evolutionary computation of the

    (the entire universe functions by one principle, evolutionary computation of the releast of pressure by either entropic expansion into space of negative entropic concentration into density by the process of continuous recursive disambiguation of disorder into order. Language like the rest of all phenomena in the universe follows the universal grammar: continuous recursive disambiguation of ambiguity into sufficient disambiguation that agreement (understanding) can be achieved. Human history consitsts in no small part of the evolution of human conceptual calculation (reason), by increases in precision that like the rest of the universe result from continous recursive disambiguation.

    Chomsky’s a bit of a nut, buthis application of Turing to language was a profound insight.

    What is language? wayfinding.
    What is theh brain capable of?
    Auto association
    Then wayfinding
    By Recursion
    Language is just an evolution of navigation.

    Reply addressees: @Gundissemenator @BrownCanard @NoahRevoy


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-12 18:07:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745870244009156608

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745858538545545474

  • WHY WE SENSE THE UNIVERSE SIMILARLY BUT EXPERIENCE IT DIFFERENTLY: The Dimension

    WHY WE SENSE THE UNIVERSE SIMILARLY BUT EXPERIENCE IT DIFFERENTLY:
    The Dimensions that Determine the Biases in Our Brains

    –“Q:Curt: Do you make distinction between phenomena and noumena? Do you agree with Kant in the way that we can’t ever have a total comprehension of reality?”–

    The first problem with the question is the word ‘we’.
    Humans demonstrate at least the following Dimensions of the mind:
    1. Masculine systematizing over time and scale (predator) vs feminine Empathizing in time absent scale (prey).
    2. The degree of dominance in that masculine compartmental (autistic) vs Feminine integrated (psychotic)
    3. Where in the back-to-front organization of the brain the individual is dominant (sensory, physical, social, rational, empirical)
    4. The degree of disambiguation between the dream, experience, imagination, observation, and conscious states.
    5. The Bias in processing assets (morality) from the feminine limited, to ascendent male less limited, to the dominant male complete.
    6. The Bias in Processing Information (before, during, after) or what we test (personality) as the big five, intelligence, and sex.
    7. The degree of neotenic evolution in the genome – rate of limited adaptivity in maturity vs continued adaptivity in neoteny.
    8. The degree of success in in-utero and first two years of development (genetics) especially in neural network formation.
    9. Age (obviously) especially the behavioral adaptivity prior to puberty, the intersexual adaptivity during and right after, and the declining intersexual adaptation after maturity.
    10. Experience – including socialization, education, training.
    11. Accumulated Trauma or Damage
    (I’m missing one I think, but i’ll add it later if it comes to me) πŸ˜‰

    The second problem is that Kant wasn’t a neuroscientist and we know these things today the he didn’t and couldn’t know, and was almost entirely wrong about.

    1)by the 10+ criteria abobve, some of us live in a dream state and some of us live in extraordinarly accurate reality. THe reason is that while our brains are quite exceptional at disambiguating senses into a three dimensional model of the world we can act in, that information is then used to predict future possibiliities, value them, and suggest them to us as intuition.

    So if some of us live in near dream states and some in cold hard reality and some of us somewhere in between, then the problem is the concept of ‘we’. Some of us grasp the world very clearly and some of us living stories from our imaginations or impulses projected on top of that world without being able to tell much of the difference, which, as we see in both schizophrenia and psychosis is a rather obvious result of the extremes.

    In other words, if nothing goes wrong, then we see the world very much as it is for the purpose of action at human scale. What we imagine is something very different. And the worse you are at imagining, and the more dream state you’re in along with it, the less of theh world you really live in and th emore of the fantasy world you live in.

    This is why we can’t make everyone agree. Because while the combination of our ability to observe, disambiguate and negavate space and time, is marginally indifferent, our use of langauge, which of necessity must consist of a protocol across minds of such different experiencee, then fools us into thing we share the same interpretations of the world that we sense and percieve.

    So a) philosophers are irrelevant in every possible way, b) we see the world as it is, c) we imagine what it means to us differently.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @partymember55


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-11 01:39:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745259180078886912

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745250718905155637

  • And I would say that this is true, but that science is merely an application of

    And I would say that this is true, but that science is merely an application of testimony from the law to other disciplines. (Cause that really is how it evolved in the west)


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 04:39:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744217240038220250

    Reply addressees: @LiminalRev @RussellJohnston @Zamicol @cryptogeni

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744216605729366477

  • The only issue is that if it can be described mathematically (a description not

    The only issue is that if it can be described mathematically (a description not a causation) that does not mean it can be constructed operationally – meaning such entities cannot be brought into existence.

    The counter-argument is that since all mathematical problems require some projection (reduction) to a common dimension of measurement (or set) that we may find correlations (‘meaning’) even if the construction cannot possibly be brought into being. this is, in effect, what the brain’s neurons accomplish by the process of what we call ‘inference’.

    Reply addressees: @LiminalRev @RussellJohnston @Zamicol @cryptogeni


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 04:06:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744208831561814016

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744207502470750223

  • The halting problem is a question of input pairs (subsets). There is no subset i

    The halting problem is a question of input pairs (subsets). There is no subset in the universe other than itself. As such the universe can only perform operations on a hierarchy of stable equlibria (quanta) and has no algorithm except decrease in pressure by spatial expansion or increase in density. It it can exist the universe can compute it given the conditions for the formation of any stable equilibria (state). These states are not predictable but if they exist they are computable because computable means ‘constructable’ whereas mathematics only means ‘describable’.

    Reply addressees: @RussellJohnston @Zamicol @cryptogeni


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 03:29:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744199637563584512

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744196859319726182