Theme: Decidability

  • (Because it’s not just that. It’s the science of decidability and we have used t

    (Because it’s not just that. It’s the science of decidability and we have used that science to extend decidability from the physical to the behavioral sciences)


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-14 15:39:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1669006565787987972

    Reply addressees: @WalterIII @ThruTheHayes

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1668846049799344128

  • THE NATURAL LAW OF DECIDABILTY ON THE STATE OF PHYSICS: 1) Yes there is a classi

    THE NATURAL LAW OF DECIDABILTY ON THE STATE OF PHYSICS:
    1) Yes there is a classical explanation of quantum mechanics using fluid dynamics.
    2) Yes an ‘aether’ exists as the quantum background with fluidic properties.
    3) The variables aren’t hidden. They were deducible. They weren’t deduced because of a failure permute upon classical explanations in favor of continuing mathematical (non causal) explanations.
    4) Yes this ‘mathiness’ set us back because math is only descriptive not causal, and as such, einstein/bohr’s descriptive but non causal adventure with ‘mathiness’ (platonism) was easier to solve than maxwell, lorentz, and hilbert’s ‘physics’ (realism, naturalism, empiricism).
    5) No, there is no evidence of non classical existence. We simply do not know if information can be transmitted by other than waves through the background at whatever lower level of resolution that exists that the background evolves from.
    6) So we face two problems (a) a set of models rather than a mathematics from which to produce experiments (b) the means of testing the even-smaller to perform these experiments.

    Why? If we study the *instinctual* means of human igorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, magical thinking, fictionalisms, deceits and denials, we can catalogue them, and test hypotheses and theories for engaging in those means of ‘error’ (or lying). (And it’s humiliating to study human lying, and then gaining awareness of how much of our speech consists of lies whether by intent or not.

    If we search through the history of western *systems* of thought, we find the conflict between the observable and the imaginary in the empiricism of aristotle(epicurus, the stoics et all), and the magical thinking in plato’s idealism as well as in other civilizations as confucian wisdom, supernatural abrahamism, hinduism, and buddhism.

    If we catalogue the sophistries of suggestion (deceit) and overloading by loading, framing, obscuring, fabrication, and the fictionalisms of Emotional: Supernatural->Theology, Verbal: Idealism->Philosophy(Idealism), and Physical:Magic->Pseudoscience and Pseudomathematics, we find man is naturally predisposed to ‘lie’ whenever possible if for no other reason than psychological comfort or satisfaction at having some sort of answer, and that man lies by overloading each of the three human faculties of measurement: emotion, langauge, and the physical world.

    And if we catalog the evolution of the history of thought from instinct to cusality as:
    |Cognitive Evolution|: Embodiment > Anthropomorphism(Projection) > Mythology(Explanation) > Theology(authoritarian idealism) > Philosophy(Rational Idealism) > Natural Philosophy(Empiricism, Measurement) > Science(Calculus, Correspondence) > Operationalism(Computation, Causality).

    The purpose of the scientific method is to produce testimony. The purpose of the market for science is to produce evolutionary survival (or death) of testimony. Over time we reduce surviving testimony, by versimilitude (market competition) toward parsimony (first principles) from which we no longer need to imagine, hypothesize, theorize, but only describe as a sequence of causal operations in time in a hierarchy of first principles. If we can do so, then it’s testifiable. If we can’t it’s not.

    My work in large part is in this ‘via negativa’ completion of the logic of falsification, recognizing that there is no proof, only survival from falsification. Because the sequence of certainty is:
    |Certainty|: incomprehensible > comprehensible but undecidable > possibly true but undecidable > decidably false.

    It’s not just physics and behavioral science that are lost. It most everything other than technology. Why? The marxists, the left, and yes, especially jewish thought leaders, reintroduced non-european thinking into our sciences, that depended upon their ancestral cultural ‘logic’ that includes the above methods of self and other deception (lying) and as such we have the crisis of the age – while we try to preserve european truth in the face of a world trying to assert it’s ancestral thought that is everything but true.

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


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-14 14:52:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1668994926829338627

  • 1. Interesting. Wouldn’t have anticipated that reading. Here: “The people prohib

    1. Interesting. Wouldn’t have anticipated that reading.
    Here: “The people prohibit any and all claims of and uses of authority and instead constrain decisions to decidability upon which they can agree.”
    Ergo we are all bound by the laws of nature and the customary laws we have discovered in nature, and conflicts can be decided by applying those laws of nature, by a jury of peers, whether in thang (senate, parliament) or court. Note that this applied to sovereigns (warrior aristocracy) and over time we have attempted to extend western ethics to classes of individuals previously (and perhaps still) unable to participate in decidability, and are still limited to statements of preference.

    2. Prohibition is a noun that means the act of forbidding or preventing something by law or authority.
    Here are some examples of how to use prohibition in a sentence:
    The prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s led to the rise of illegal speakeasies and bootlegging.
    Many people oppose the prohibition of marijuana, arguing that it has medical benefits and is less harmful than other drugs.
    The government imposed a prohibition on the import of certain goods from the neighboring country.
    She faced a prohibition from driving for six months after she was caught speeding.
    The school has a strict prohibition on cheating and plagiarism.

    Reply addressees: @astrotrad @Nefertiiti


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-14 11:27:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1668943353713442818

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1668938828126486529

  • WHY I KEEP USING THE TERM “P-LAW” (P-Method, P-Logic, P-Science, P-Law, etc.) “P

    WHY I KEEP USING THE TERM “P-LAW”
    (P-Method, P-Logic, P-Science, P-Law, etc.)

    “P-Complete” from Wikipedia:
    “In computational complexity theory, a decision problem is P-complete (complete for the complexity class P) if it is in P and every problem in P can be reduced to it by an appropriate reduction.”

    Ergo: **All existence can be explained by reduction to the first principles of evolutionary computation. In other words, anything that can exist can be reduced to a formal description in P-Law.**

    I abandoned the term ‘Propertarianism’ since it applied only to the original system of measurement in ethics and morality. I kept the “P-” for P-Completeness. And because ‘-ism’ implies a philosophy, and P-Law is a formal logic: a science that unifies the logics and sciences.

    Ergo P-Law is P-Complete.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-13 20:23:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1668715789799530497

  • The Natural Law Institute The Science of Cooperation A universally commensurable

    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation
    A universally commensurable, value-neutral, formal operational logic of decidability within and across all disciplines, by the science and logic of evolutionary computation of the incremental defeat of entropy, and in turn,…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-10 20:08:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1667624892269830147

  • (Decidability = Truth) That’s all that’s needed

    (Decidability = Truth) That’s all that’s needed.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-08 01:37:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1666620397410824195

    Reply addressees: @_Akhaten

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1666619894853402626

  • “Q: WHY DO YOU DEFINE ALL TERMS IN A SERIES?” (ordinal mathematics) Do you remem

    “Q: WHY DO YOU DEFINE ALL TERMS IN A SERIES?”
    (ordinal mathematics)

    Do you remember in geometry class, the teacher explained how three points test a line? And the more points you test that appear on that line the more valid the formula for the line?

    A line constitutes a dimension of measurement. Points on that line are definitions that are consistent with that dimension. In other words, we are certain that those points, all of which are on a line, share the same properties: the same properties of that dimension.

    So, that’s why we use ‘disambiguation by enumeration (listing), serialization (putting them on a line in an order), and operationalization (describing them as actions, and actions as common properties), where those common properties define the dimension(s) we’re measuring.

    So, in our canonical example:
    |Moral|: Evil – Immoral – Unethical – Amoral – Ethical – Moral – Virtuous.
    Given moral value refers to deviation from reciprocity.
    Therefore we define the dimension of morality using four properties: Limits(Evil-to-Virtuous), Directness-Indirectness, Severity, and Intention(evil requires intent)

    So instead of ‘cardinal mathematics’ (numbers) we call this ‘ordinal mathematics’. Meaning that we can use triangulation of terms to determine the order, producing an unambiguous series of measurements, and the properties we are measuring, so that we prevent ourselves and other from ignorance, error, bias, and deceit by denial, evasion, inflation and conflation.

    So just as you decide 4 of something is greater than 3 and less than 5 of it, you decide by this same ‘triangulation’ (Sesame street game) that morality is more indirect(anonymous) than ethics, but less so than virtue.

    So, while numbers are names of positions, and our terms are names of positions, in this sense, our terms like numbers, represent only an order in a measurement. Unlike numbers they do not necessarily require the same scale between them. And again unlike numbers, or more correctly, unlike numbers on the same scale, they are not commensurable any more than time (minutes) and space (miles) are commensurable: the second or third position on a given ordinal sequence does not reflect the second or third position on a different ordinal sequence. This is because we are measuring different *dimensions* and dimensions represent one or more causes.

    I hope this helps
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-06 15:28:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1666104800642052100

  • Decidabiity isn’t an opinion. Decidable Truth isnt an opinion. The purpose of tr

    Decidabiity isn’t an opinion. Decidable Truth isnt an opinion. The purpose of truth is to prevent lying. You’re lying. And you just demonstrated yet again how abrahamism teaches you to lie.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-22 02:49:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1660477850267385857

    Reply addressees: @nodegeneracy @dx_minor @remnantposting

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1660476637551493120

  • This is absolutely false. 1) AGI CAN only do what it’s programmed to do. All sys

    This is absolutely false.
    1) AGI CAN only do what it’s programmed to do. All systems need a means of decidability.
    2) Morality (reciprocity) is simple. We just lie about it because we. don’t want morality we want to claim what we want is moral. You would have to fail to program…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-15 20:15:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1658204442896769049

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1657978750779244546

  • RT @anderstegn: @curtdoolittle The decidability to judge even in absence of math

    RT @anderstegn: @curtdoolittle The decidability to judge even in absence of mathematical measurements is provided by commonality.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-13 17:15:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1657434429311025152