@Plinz, poetically stated, and I would have used ‘decidability’ instead of ‘consensus’ to avoid anthropomorphism of competing networks, but yes, ‘consensus’ would frame it with explanatory power.
… Auto association > Prediction > Competition > Attention (State) > Recursion…
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-31 12:46:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1774417930500932024
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1774245828372451689
CLAUDE 3 LEARNED P-LAW DISAMBIGUATION FROM TWO PROMPTS? !!!
Note that I didn’t suggest the term to disambiguate. It did. I provided only (a) the SDO post and (b) the Types post.
The result is a little weak (the use of average) but otherwise it appears I can teach it anything within a context window.
CD: PROMPT
Excellent. Do you think you could apply the method described in these two posts?
CLAUDE3-OPUS
Yes, I believe I can apply the method described in the two posts to create a system of measurement for a given concept. Let me demonstrate by applying the process to the concept of “intelligence.”
Step 1: Select the term: Intelligence
Step 2: Collect related terms, synonyms, and antonyms
Ignorance, stupidity, foolishness, cleverness, wisdom, knowledge, understanding, aptitude, intellect, brilliance, genius
Step 3: Organize the terms in a sequence based on a constant relation Ignorance < Stupidity < Foolishness < Average Intelligence < Cleverness < Intellect < Wisdom < Brilliance < Genius
Step 4: Define or redefine terms to ensure unambiguity within the sequence
Ignorance: Lack of knowledge, understanding, or awareness
Stupidity: Acting or behaving in a way that shows a lack of intelligence or understanding
Foolishness: Lack of good sense or judgment
Average Intelligence: Having a level of intelligence that is typical or common among the general population
Cleverness: Having quick-witted intelligence and resourcefulness
Intellect: The faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively
Wisdom: The ability to use knowledge, experience, and understanding to make good judgments and decisions
Brilliance: Exceptional intellectual ability and originality
Genius: Extraordinary intellectual and creative power
Step 5: Convert definitions to Operational Language in complete sentences without using the verb “to be”
Ignorance: One demonstrates a lack of knowledge, understanding, or awareness.
Stupidity: One acts or behaves in a way that shows a lack of intelligence or understanding.
Foolishness: One demonstrates a lack of good sense or judgment.
Average Intelligence: One demonstrates a level of intelligence that is typical or common among the general population.
Cleverness: One demonstrates quick-witted intelligence and resourcefulness.
Intellect: One demonstrates the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively.
Wisdom: One demonstrates the ability to use knowledge, experience, and understanding to make good judgments and decisions.
Brilliance: One demonstrates exceptional intellectual ability and originality.
Genius: One demonstrates extraordinary intellectual and creative power.
Step 6: Use the most precise term from the sequence when communicating When discussing someone’s intelligence, use the most appropriate term from the sequence to convey the precise level of intelligence being referred to.
Step 7: Enumerate and repeat the series when educating others When explaining the concept of intelligence, enumerate the series to help others understand the spectrum of intelligence and the specific terms used to describe different levels of intelligence.
By applying this process to the concept of intelligence, we have created a system of measurement that allows for more precise communication and understanding of the various levels of intelligence. This method can be applied to other concepts to create similar systems of measurement, improving clarity and precision in communication and thinking.
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-07 23:32:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1765883199693914112
DISAMBIGUATION, OPERATIONALIZATION, SERIALIZATION
(Repost)
“Disambiguation, Operationalization, Serialization,”
What the heck does that mean?
serialize: to arrange (something) in a series.
series: a number of things, events, or people of a similar kind or related nature coming one after another.
From “Disambiguation by serialization by constant relation, and operationalization.”
The constant relation (falsehood, epistemology, morality)
The serialization: ignorance > error > bias > wishful thinking…
Where operationalization means converting into a series of subjectively testable human actions thereby producing measurements given the marginal indifference in human action.
So where |falsehood| is a monodirectional series, |epistemology| is monodirectional loop, and |MORAL| is bidirectional from the center ‘amoral’.
This process requires we collect all synonyms and antonyms, organize them by some constant relation into a series of less or more of that constant relation.
Why?
All words (nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs) are constructed of dimensions (scales, series of measurements), open to sense, perception, emotion, or action.
In most cases the human sense perception spectrum appears to produce no more than five degrees of difference for any measurement, such as “distant past, past, recent past, now.” And there are a number of reasons for this – which is why you can only visualize so many of the same things, remember so many numbers or terms, or discern so many directions etc.
In general terms our universe is triangular bias left, forward, bias right, which is our direction of motion. This is also the minimum and maximum necessary decision criteria.
If I go deeper it will get too complicated.
So, by disambiguation by inventorying, operationalizing, serializing into sequences we create unambiguous measurements for language that prohibit conflation and ambiguity and therefore errors of inference and deduction, effectively turning language – especially language like english with so many terms – into a system of measurement.
By combining this technique of very specific terms (measurements), using operational language that is testable, in promissory form (I Promise that…), absent verb-to-be (meaning “I dunno the condition of existence”) in complete sentences, of complete transactions of changes in state, we convert language to a via-negativa equivalent of a via-positiva programming language with the same test of possibility (compilability) since the ability to compile is a test of disambiguity (yes that’s the secret sauce).
By using supply demand tests of statements rather than ideals we end up with the formal economics of human behavior.
For example, decidability = demand for infallibility in the context in question.
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-07 23:11:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1765878079040131072
P-Law for Dummies
(repost)
Learn the dimensions of consistency necessary for claims one has performed the due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit that are necessary for claims of testimonial truth: categorical(identity), logical(internally consistent), operational (operationally possible), empirical (correspondent), rational(choice), reciprocal (moral) consistency, limits, completeness, and coherence.
Learn how to disambiguate by operationalization and serialization of terms into series (types) so that conflation and subsequent errors and deceits of conflation and inference are impossible. This will unite the different fields into a common vocabulary.
Learn how to write in complete, promissory, operational vocabulary, free of the verb to be (eliminate pretense of knowledge) – this will unite the fields into a common grammar.
Write definitions in that operational vocabulary and grammar that describe man and mankind from the individual to the species to prevent misrepresentation.
Take the natural law of tort (demonstrated interest), the demand for reciprocity as a test of decidability in matters of conflict (productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer, free of negative externality, warrantied, and within limits of restitution possible by the actors.)
Write all constitution, legislation, regulation, and finding of the courts in this language, grammar, and programmatic structure
Restate the constitution, and in particular the bill of rights in these strictly constructed terms, closed to arbitrary interpretation, to fully enumerate all rights, obligations, and inalienability of those rights and obligations.
Expand the law of fraud from commercial speech to political (and academic) speech, in public, in matters public, to the public, and grant universal standing in matters of the commons. (Reduce the barrier to class actions against false, and irreciprocal speech
Plug the primary hole in western law of tort that was exploited during the twentieth century: Criminalize baiting into hazard using false and unwarrantable promise. The effect of this will be to suppress lying by the state, the financial sector, the commercial sector, the media, the academy,
Restore universal applicability so that those issuing legislation, regulation, and findings of the court, are liable for their actions, prohibiting violation of the constitution and strict construction.
Require the court assent all legislation and regulation. Provide means by which the undecidable is returned to the legislature for settlement – rather than the court.
This sequence will outlaw the entire postwar attempt to reverse the Darwinian revolution that explained, and justified western civilizations’ thousands of years of self domestication with criteria for reproduction, and aggressive hanging of criminals, dragging mankind out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, hard labor, starvation, disease, and the vicissitudes of nature by the false promises of french socialism, german secular theology, jewish marxism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and human-biodiversity-denialism, that are positioned as a war against european supremacy – but is nothing more than the attempt to end the reason for the west (and east asia’s) success: Self domestication through negative eugenics (limiting underclass reproduction and survival) are more important than even education and literacy and the primary diver for raising mankind to its current condition.
The anti-semitism in Propertarianism is not a genetic criticism, but anti-abrahamic: the use of the abrahamic method of deceit that institutionalized as a group strategy the female means of warfare by undermining from within by the fomentation of conflict between men. Judaism, christianity, and islam, in the old world, and marxism(class warfare to undermine formal institutions), postmodernism (social construction to undermine soft institutions), feminism (to undermine familial institutions), and human science denialism (to undermine the optimum group strategy of ethnocentrism for developing high trust, high investment commons, and high redistribution).
—“I categorize P as describing the intellectual foundations of western civilization that the populists are currently demanding, but don’t know how to express in rational and scientific terms.”—
P-law completes the scientific method as one of due diligence; completes the darwinian revolution of decision by competition in evolution; and unites the physical, cognitive, psychological, social, political and economic sciences into one discipline: testimony by realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism, rational choice, reciprocity, within limits, completeness, and restitutability.
This is why we think y’all (Critics) are rather dimwits.
You latch onto what you grasp.
You do not seek to understand.
And in doing so maintain ignorance and immorality and the destruction of western civlization and its benefits to mankind, out of your own laziness and arrogance.
P completes the Aristotelian project.
Doolittle is not special. Like Aristotle, Smith, Hume, and Darwin, he is just living at a point in time where cognitive science, Turing’s revolution, economics, and evidence of the past century have combined with the internet’s discount on the acquisition and access to research publications, making possible the completion of the synthesis of disciplines to reform the laws we live under such that we prevent another semitic dark age brought about by the the most advanced system of deception invented by man: the weaponization and institutionalization of the female means of undermining by false promise (seduction) from within.
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-07 23:10:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1765877715096182785
Let me help you:
1. Imaginary Reducibility
2. … Verbal Reducibility
3. … … Operational Reducibility
4. .. … … Computational Reducibility
5. … … … … Mathematical Reducibility
Which set is the largest and which set is the smallest?
Source date (UTC): 2024-02-29 21:22:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1763313781591912848
EPISTEMOLOGY VS DECIDABILITY
The relationship between epistemology and decidability is both profound and integral to understanding the nature of knowledge, truth, and the frameworks through which we make decisions.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the…
Source date (UTC): 2024-02-21 17:45:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1760360127742238985
EPISTEMOLOGY VS DECIDABILITY
The relationship between epistemology and decidability is both profound and integral to understanding the nature of knowledge, truth, and the frameworks through which we make decisions.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge, exploring the nature, origin, scope, and limits of human knowledge. It addresses questions about what knowledge is, how it is acquired, and the extent to which any subject or entity can be known.
Decidability, in a broad philosophical context, refers to the ability to make clear, definitive decisions or judgments about propositions, theories, or knowledge claims. In logic and mathematics, decidability is more specifically defined as the question of whether a given problem can be algorithmically solved—i.e., whether there exists a finite, systematic procedure that can always lead to a clear yes or no answer to a question posed within a specific formal system.
The relationship between these two concepts centers on the idea of how we come to know what we claim to know (epistemology) and how that knowledge informs our ability to make decisions or judgments about truth, falsity, and the applicability of information (decidability). In many respects, decidability is a practical outcome or goal of epistemological inquiry: to not only understand the nature of knowledge but also to apply it in making determinations about the world.
From an epistemological viewpoint, the criteria we use to judge the validity or truth of knowledge claims directly influence our ability to decide on the truth or falsity of propositions. For example, the principle of verification, a concept in logical positivism, suggests that a proposition is meaningful only if it can be definitively proven true or false. This principle directly ties the concept of meaningful knowledge (an epistemological concern) to the concept of decidability.
In your work, given your interest in performative truth, morality, law, economics, and other areas, decidability becomes a crucial concern as it pertains to the application of epistemological principles. Deciding on the truth or falsity of claims, the justness of laws, or the efficacy of economic policies requires a foundation in how we know what we claim to know and how we evaluate the validity of these claims. This intersection is where epistemology provides the theoretical framework, and decidability represents the practical application or outcome of this framework in real-world decision-making processes.
Moreover, in the context of your emphasis on Natural Law and the unification of the sciences, the relationship between epistemology and decidability extends into the methodology for deriving universal principles that govern human behavior and social order. This involves critically examining how we acquire knowledge across disciplines and how this knowledge can be consistently applied to make decisions that are congruent with Natural Law principles.
Source date (UTC): 2024-02-21 17:45:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1760360127486439424
Legal Decidability.
1. Who is sovereign: People, parliament, king, dictator?
2. Legitimacy via commonality of dispute resolution in court (via negativa). Where commonality of findings in court across cases and regions is empirical evidence of legitimacy.
3. Legitimacy via concurrency in voting (via positiva). Where concurrency produces legitimacy by tests agreement across classes and regions as defense of minority positions against the tyranny of the majority.
4. If the people are sovereign, possessing self determination, then both commonality and concurrency are necessary.
For example the British parliament is sovereign, not the people vs the American people are ostensively sovereign not the government.
5. Western law is empirical not philosophical. We invented science as an extension of our law. We invented law as an extension of our politics. We invented our politics out of necessity of organizing groups of families to venture out on the steppe.
Cheers
Reply addressees: @whatifalthist @FedSoc
Source date (UTC): 2024-02-21 15:21:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1760323814125146113
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1760174170577514841
All religions fail, and must fail, post-agrarianism unless they are reduced to law, that is testable, decidable, and resolves differences, thus facilitating cooperation.
Religions are simple myths that convey subjectively experiential values for use as general rules of behavior.
In this way they contain unconscious rules (metaphysical grammars) that do not require young adult reason, or mature empiricism.
In the hierarchy of grammars, from anthropomorphic to mythic to theological to philosophical to rationalism to empiricism to science to operationalism, we require the least cognitive and informational density at the beginning and the most cognitive effort and informational density at the end.
Therefore as the complexity of social economic technological and political orders increase, we develop not only classes under the division of labor, but cognitive classes each using grammars of their class, in hierarchical order.
As such, where, in primitive societies classes were marginally indifferent, in advanced societies classes are marginally different and sometimes vastly so.
So, instead of a unifying religion of the simple and anthropomorphic experiential we require a strategy for the grop that is consistent whether described at that mythological and intuitionistic level or at the calculative and unintuitive level.
As such the only solution is a non-false religion that can be expressed mythically to computationally.
The only religion I know of that does this is nature worship, ancestor worship, hero worship, and ‘nation-worship’. Because all religion provokes a debt response, producing the submission response, producing the sense of safety in the group, producing mindfulness, because of shared systems of values and measurements. This is why religions function for all humans – but grammars (paradigms) of differ across humans and in particular vary by race.
So, (a) first understand your group evolutionary strategy and why it has been successful, and (b) then attempt to translate past religions in to a new religion that is no longer false. And is, at worst, metaphysically presumptive and narrative.
Why? Because the truth is quite challenging – we are relevant to the universe – it is a vast hostile irradiated wasteland, and even this planet seeks to genocide us with disturbing regularity – and as such must become, as our ancient pre-christian ancestors understood, competitors to the gods, so by our reason and civility eventually replace them as gods ourselves.
Reply addressees: @X_Filosofo @AshaLogos @sovereignbrah
Source date (UTC): 2024-02-11 23:23:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1756821293523931136
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1756818063830196348
Yes but it requires a non trivial understanding of the conflict in the foundations of mathematics, and the subsequent movements in related fields – even philosophy.
Simple version: time and space are measurements (ideal, mathematical), probabilities are measurements (ideal, mathematical), infinities can’t exist, but are an artifact of mathematical grammar caused by scale independence (ideal, mathematical). In other words, while Descartes rescued western mathematics by returning it to the greek science of measurement, cantor, bohr, einstein re-platonized it equating it with language again (as the middle east had done with algebra for example).
This affected every field. It affected physics the most by making it non-physical. And this is important. Because the information present in a physical theory creates greater opportunity for deduction and induction and even abduction than does an ideal theory – something which has been overwhelmingly demonstrated by the failures in physics over the past half century.
I’m increasingly concerned that the next ‘scientific revolution’ will require a lot of tombstones in physics.
Reply addressees: @vertetluisant @charlesmurray
Source date (UTC): 2024-02-10 15:12:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1756335415445905408
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1756313377721270568