RT @StevePender: @curtdoolittle Their descriptions were inadequately disambiguated to first principles, so any derived prescriptions didn’t…
Source date (UTC): 2023-05-11 13:43:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656656235272232962
YES WE ARE WORKING ON FORMAL LOGIC OF NATURAL LAW – AND YES WE ARE WORKING TOWARD AN AI
(non-arbitrary scientific law of decidability independent of context.)
At this point I can work on the project about three hours a day before I’m too exhausted. As my health continues to improve I see getting back to four to six hours. I don’t see myself returning to my previous ability to work twelve to fourteen hours a day, or even eight – but I keep hope a live. 😉
The team works with me every single day. But this isn’t like writing narratives. It’s a set of verbal proofs (tests). And we have to use language that is as ordinally precise as math is cardinally precise.
That said, you can see the entire scope of the work at this point – it’s eight volumes. We’re trying to finish the constitution (Law) volume first and most of the innovation is in what we’d call truth, testimony, and crimes facilitated by (political) speech.
ChatGPT4 *already* knows my work (P-Law) through 2021. I can successfully write text ‘in the style of philosopher and social scientist curt doolittle” if you ask. You will note it’s use of enumerations if you try it. But its logic is useless regardless of prompt we construct.
LLM’s are broad by shallow. The are terrible at logic at present. Putting my work into an LLM or equivalent requires the AI can perform constructive logic. The direction of LLM’s will (eventually) lead to Markov Chains (causal sequences), Episodal Contexts (contextual limits) and from that point we can add moral (reciprocal) tests. So it is possible to ‘train’ one of the more simple models with our work so that the bias in the model is so strong it won’t fail – just as they teach LLMs “Alignment” (Too often by lying rather than denying unfortunately.)
There is a strong chance that what we’re doing can be incorporated into a Wolfram Language more easily and then invoked from an LLM. If necessary we can default to our original plan: reliance on the equivalent of a compiler that identifies falsehood and irreciprocity. Though Wolfram Language is both a more structured framework and one less likely to be tampered with than an LLM.
Until we’ve finished with the descriptive section of the law:
– Laws of Nature (Physical, Evolutionary),
– Laws of Man (Cognitive and Behavioral),
– Laws of Language (Logic, Testimony, Deceit),
– Natural Law (Cooperation, Conflict),
– Rule of Law (Decidability, Epistemology)
– Rights Obligations Inalienations (Display Word Deed)
Then we can’t train the model becaues it will infer too many false, conflationary, or inflationary definitions and relations from ordinary language.
Then there are about 130 categories of questions of applied decidability over which humans conflict (norms, traditions, values, laws etc) that it would need to be trained in order to explain not only the causal chain of the category, but how that question is decided.
Once we’ve trained it on the science, the applied science (decidability) we can train it on “perfect” Government. Which is pretty simple because it is just another applied science of decidability.
After that we can answer the questions of comparative civilization and such, the ternary logic, and evolutionary computation. But that’s really serving the supernerd community rather than practical application.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
Reply addressees: @fo81830363 @stephen_wolfram @lexfridman
Source date (UTC): 2023-05-10 21:02:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656404389458767874
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656368835736268818
No it can’t do logic (yet).
No, because most written on the subject seeks to ‘cheat’ nature.
Yes, we can teach it p-law.
Source date (UTC): 2023-05-10 20:16:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656392752643424256
Reply addressees: @ajrwalker @tysonmaly @lexfridman @stephen_wolfram
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656391795087900672
HIERARCHY:
Neuroscience >
… Epistemology >
… … Decidability >
… … … Laws of Nature >
… … … … Natural Law >
… … … … … Economics >
… … … … … … Politics (Commons)
… … … … … … … Jurisprudence >
… … … … … … … … Group Strategy >
… … …. … … … … … … Comparative Civilization
… … …. … … … … … … … Evolutionary Consequences
Source date (UTC): 2023-05-09 22:19:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656061344959832065
Define voice. Because I don’t think the definition of the term as you’re using it will pass a test of possibility. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2023-05-08 07:46:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655479175199744000
Reply addressees: @FernandoGLV1212
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655476541390741508
RT @Turbo_Flux: @curtdoolittle @WerrellBradley Extending:
If we all operated at similar time-scales, we wouldn’t be able to achieve suffici…
Source date (UTC): 2023-05-08 06:19:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655457320661397504
–“We work each on our own time scale, with independent scales of decidability and confidence. We help each other within those bounds, and that is all that can be expected.”– @WerrellBradley https://twitter.com/WerrellBradley/status/1655286483505520640
Source date (UTC): 2023-05-08 06:10:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655455010958761984
https://twitter.com/WerrellBradley/status/1655286483505520640
THE LIARS PARADOX SOLVED – AND WHAT IT MEANS
(important)
Jeffrey, (all).
I’m sure you’re not expecting the rather odd occurence of the solution to the liars paradox in a Youtube comment, but doing so is an experiment of my own that tests the utilty of social media – and our fellow man.
The liars paradox exists only because of the long standing failure to understand the science of grammar – something we have learned relatively recently in computer science (and how computer science, or computatation, differs from mathemtics: math is a verbal system of measurement and description, while computation is an operational system of causality, whcih explains why nearly evertyting is reducible to computational algorithm but very ittle is reducible to mathematical description.
Now, there are four points we need make here:
(1) all language means what the speaker or author intends it to mean – true false, right wrong, good bad, prefereable and not-preferable. Ergo words don’t mean things, people do. And we develop language as a protocol for the transfer of what we mean. As such all languge consists of measurements of various levels of precision. And we often misunderstand misapply or disagree on those measurements just as much as your foot and my foot represent a ‘foot length
(2) All language then consists of measurements that are approximations open to suggestion imposing a cost of deduction, induction, abduction on the audience.
(3) The word “is” (is, are, was, were etc), as the verb to be, or more specifically, the copula, evades the disambiguation of the means of existence of whatever the speaker or author referrs to – relying on suggestion requiring substitution by the listener and reader, allowing that individual to interpret it as he will on one hand, or as a means of deception by claiming equality of identity, OR false claim of knowledge of the speaker or author.
(4) All grammar, as Chomsky partly explained, consists of rules of continuous recursive disambiguation, into an identity free of ambiguity. (English evolved as a legal and then scientific language, and appropriated words wherever possible as increasingly specific measurements, for a variety of reasons and is a minor improvement over German that contains a few grammatical issues, even if it originated a language of martial testimony, as did proto germanic, and indo european before it.)
As such “everthying in this box is false” intentionally violates the demand for continuous recursive disambiguation by enaging in specifically designed recursive disambiguity. In other words, the author of the so called paradox is lying to illustrate the first rule of grammatical construction: continuous recursive disambiguation and a defense against suggestion, substitution, conflation, inflation, and deception.
As such, the liars paradox is not a paradox (any more than Zeno’s word games), or chinese wisdom literature’s similar puzzles. It’s trying to teach you something profound: Its the canonical example of how lies are contructed by:
(a) violating the promise of testimonial truth (anything you say yuo claim as true is in fact an act of testimoy we can test whether is testifiable);
(b) claiming words mean something rather than suggest the meaning intended by their author;
(c) failure to continuously recursively disambiguate a sentence, set of them, or narrative;
(d) relying on the copula to to cause ambiguity, for deception by suggestion, of either identity, means of existence, or pretense of the speaker’s knowledge;
(e) taking advantage of the ignorance of these matters by the common people – and even ther educatos and professors.
The Kicker: Theology (imaginary), Philosophy (verbal), Pseudoscience(physical), and Positive Law (Social(Organizational)) – the last of which you won’t likely understand – are all dependent on you NOT understanding the above rules of testimony, grammar, suggestion, and liability for truth claims. Nor that all four of those paradigms, plus the fifth of ‘mathematical sophistry (or ‘mathiness’) are what we call ‘fictionalisms’: systematic means of lying to you for the simple purpose of manipulating you into some political alliance or other that is in opposition to the truth: the laws of the universe for someone’s gain or to impose a loss on someone or some group. 😉
The (Negative) Natural Law of Cooperation is relatively simple, and a direct necessary andconsequential evolution of the physical laws of the universe that takes advantage of our evolution of memory prediction, socialization (imitation, sympathy, empathy) and choice:
The reciprocal insurance, by word, deed, and if necessary, force of arms, of self determination by self determined means, by the eradication of authority, via the construction of sovereignty in demonstrated interests (stuff you’ve earned), reciprocity in display word and deed, and truth before face, duty before self, and excellence and beauty, by the direction of dominance expression to the production of commons, limiting us to markets for voluntary cooperation in association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, polities, and war; and the production of commons by test of conccurrency of regions classes (and now sexes) whether voting, or legislation, and markets for resolution of disputes by fight, duel, and a hierarchy of courts by rule of law of the natural law and the accumulated evidence of decisions by that law in the the empirical, common, concurrent law of trespass prohibits the violation all of the above, at the cost of the punishment, prevention, exclusion, and if necessary death of those who consistently violate that law of tresspass and insurance of others from it, as well as the (ouch) suppression of the reproduction of those unfit for all of the above, thereby continuing evolution by natural selection independent of authority or opinion.
I hope this clears up a few issues that have plagued humanity because the preservation of the opportunity for coercion by deception is of so much value to the talking, educating, administrating, and governing classes.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute.
REGARDING:
https://t.co/KvfnnsUOSs
REFERRING TO:
https://t.co/ZV60Iqzgna
Source date (UTC): 2023-05-08 01:14:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655380552512315393
THE LIARS PARADOX SOLVED – AND WHAT IT MEANS
(important)
Jeffrey, (all).
I’m sure you’re not expecting the rather odd occurence of the solution to the liars paradox in a Youtube comment, but doing so is an experiment of my own that tests the utilty of social media – and our fellow man.
The liars paradox exists only because of the long standing failure to understand the science of grammar – something we have learned relatively recently in computer science (and how computer science, or computatation, differs from mathemtics: math is a verbal system of measurement and description, while computation is an operational system of causality, whcih explains why nearly evertyting is reducible to computational algorithm but very ittle is reducible to mathematical description.
Now, there are four points we need make here:
(1) all language means what the speaker or author intends it to mean – true false, right wrong, good bad, prefereable and not-preferable. Ergo words don’t mean things, people do. And we develop language as a protocol for the transfer of what we mean. As such all languge consists of measurements of various levels of precision. And we often misunderstand misapply or disagree on those measurements just as much as your foot and my foot represent a ‘foot length
(2) All language then consists of measurements that are approximations open to suggestion imposing a cost of deduction, induction, abduction on the audience.
(3) The word “is” (is, are, was, were etc), as the verb to be, or more specifically, the copula, evades the disambiguation of the means of existence of whatever the speaker or author referrs to – relying on suggestion requiring substitution by the listener and reader, allowing that individual to interpret it as he will on one hand, or as a means of deception by claiming equality of identity, OR false claim of knowledge of the speaker or author.
(4) All grammar, as Chomsky partly explained, consists of rules of continuous recursive disambiguation, into an identity free of ambiguity. (English evolved as a legal and then scientific language, and appropriated words wherever possible as increasingly specific measurements, for a variety of reasons and is a minor improvement over German that contains a few grammatical issues, even if it originated a language of martial testimony, as did proto germanic, and indo european before it.)
As such “everthying in this box is false” intentionally violates the demand for continuous recursive disambiguation by enaging in specifically designed recursive disambiguity. In other words, the author of the so called paradox is lying to illustrate the first rule of grammatical construction: continuous recursive disambiguation and a defense against suggestion, substitution, conflation, inflation, and deception.
As such, the liars paradox is not a paradox (any more than Zeno’s word games), or chinese wisdom literature’s similar puzzles. It’s trying to teach you something profound: Its the canonical example of how lies are contructed by:
(a) violating the promise of testimonial truth (anything you say yuo claim as true is in fact an act of testimoy we can test whether is testifiable);
(b) claiming words mean something rather than suggest the meaning intended by their author;
(c) failure to continuously recursively disambiguate a sentence, set of them, or narrative;
(d) relying on the copula to to cause ambiguity, for deception by suggestion, of either identity, means of existence, or pretense of the speaker’s knowledge;
(e) taking advantage of the ignorance of these matters by the common people – and even ther educatos and professors.
The Kicker: Theology (imaginary), Philosophy (verbal), Pseudoscience(physical), and Positive Law (Social(Organizational)) – the last of which you won’t likely understand – are all dependent on you NOT understanding the above rules of testimony, grammar, suggestion, and liability for truth claims. Nor that all four of those paradigms, plus the fifth of ‘mathematical sophistry (or ‘mathiness’) are what we call ‘fictionalisms’: systematic means of lying to you for the simple purpose of manipulating you into some political alliance or other that is in opposition to the truth: the laws of the universe for someone’s gain or to impose a loss on someone or some group. 😉
The (Negative) Natural Law of Cooperation is relatively simple, and a direct necessary andconsequential evolution of the physical laws of the universe that takes advantage of our evolution of memory prediction, socialization (imitation, sympathy, empathy) and choice:
The reciprocal insurance, by word, deed, and if necessary, force of arms, of self determination by self determined means, by the eradication of authority, via the construction of sovereignty in demonstrated interests (stuff you’ve earned), reciprocity in display word and deed, and truth before face, duty before self, and excellence and beauty, by the direction of dominance expression to the production of commons, limiting us to markets for voluntary cooperation in association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, polities, and war; and the production of commons by test of conccurrency of regions classes (and now sexes) whether voting, or legislation, and markets for resolution of disputes by fight, duel, and a hierarchy of courts by rule of law of the natural law and the accumulated evidence of decisions by that law in the the empirical, common, concurrent law of trespass prohibits the violation all of the above, at the cost of the punishment, prevention, exclusion, and if necessary death of those who consistently violate that law of tresspass and insurance of others from it, as well as the (ouch) suppression of the reproduction of those unfit for all of the above, thereby continuing evolution by natural selection independent of authority or opinion.
I hope this clears up a few issues that have plagued humanity because the preservation of the opportunity for coercion by deception is of so much value to the talking, educating, administrating, and governing classes.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute.
REGARDING:
https://t.co/KvfnnsUOSs
Source date (UTC): 2023-05-08 01:14:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655373900165816326
While unintuitive, it is possible to produce a formal logic of decidability in the law, that will eliminate all but ‘collisions’ of policy, and over time may prevent collisions of policy, thereby constraining the precision of policy, and preventing ‘lawfare’ to circumvent the people and the legislatures. While I’m not sure Scalia himself understood the full meaning of what he was advocating, and while I’m uncertain that it was possible to do so before the cognitive revolution produced by the introduction of programmatic logic, it is at present possible to complete the natural law (science) of decidability, and then test the deviation of that decidability from that ‘optimum’.
Source date (UTC): 2023-05-02 16:36:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1653438411691130881
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1653431404980469763