Curt Doolittle

Theme: Decidability

  • For example, you’re emphasis is in restoring the realtion between formal (writte

    For example, you’re emphasis is in restoring the realtion between formal (written) and spoken language.

    My emphasis is on writing laws programmatically so that ti’s closed to interpretation (abuse, conflation, inflation, deceit) To do so requires an ordinal ‘math’ (logic) consisting of sets of measurements instead of more general and flexible terms.

    Ie: the current supreme court is, thanks to departed Judge Scalia, trying to restore the law to its transactional (accounting) origins. I’m completing that program. That way there is no means of bypassing the people by the legislature or the courts.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-22 02:48:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628225234338828290

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626615439638798337

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    Dear Lord, Professor, Saint @elonmusk ;), (All)

    Yes, we can build a TruthGPT.
    Yes, I know how. I’m a nerd. 😉
    You have no reason to believe me.
    People who follow my work do.
    I had to solve the Truth problem for an AI that could test law, constitution, legislation, regulation, and speech for truthfulness.

    I have too much on my plate reforming law for the same reason (Truth, Possibility, Legality, Legitimacy), to start another company to produce on an AI – though it’s something I’ve worked on and planned for years.

    TSLA could easily produce a TruthAI, and Twitter could use and AI produced by TSLA. The world would benefit from a TruthAI more than any technology… well…, other than a safe battery with N-times the energy density of gasoline. 😉

    For anyone interested:

    1. The embodiment that TSLA uses for cars and robots is necessary for world modeling, and world modeling is necessary for categorization (identification) from context.

    2. Route Finding in vehicles and robots is necessary for Recursive Wayfinding (thinking and problem-solving.)

    3. Novelty Detection and World Modeling combined with Way Finding are necessary for episodic memory. Memories favor novelties.

    4. Object, Space, and Background classification, combined with episodes (contexts) are necessary for sufficient disambiguation to determine ‘ownership’ and predictions.

    5. If you study linguistics you quickly realize that universal morality is embedded in all our languages (particularly English because it’s a high-precision low-context language) in the form of permission to act on a person, object, space, class, etc.

    6 So, moral AI that respects life and demonstrated interest (property) and even negotiates over control and transfer of interest is pretty simple.

    7. The next higher-order problem then is one of speech (truth). While justificationary truth is impossible (yes really) survival of falsification is possible (yes really).

    8. There is one simple logic to the universe at all scales that provides us with the opportunity for a constructive falsificationary logic. (That was the hard part)

    9. The hard bit for the next generation to swallow, is that there is a relatively simple set of criteria for *universal falsification of statements* and a *universally commensurable paradigm, grammar, vocabulary, logic, and syntax* – Yes really.

    When written or spoken language using this ‘grammar’ looks and sounds like a bit tedious form of ordinary language. And this tedious form can be reduced to ordinary language on output.

    In other words, we can and have produced a non-cardinal, ordinal, qualitative, geometry of language that can test the possibility of any speech or text’s testifiability (truth). And we can and have produced a rule set (checklist) for Truthful(testifiable), ethical(direct), and moral(indirect) questions.

    THE PLAYERS TODAY AND WHY TSLA MATTERS

    TSLA vs Google vs OpenAI use three different models. OpenAi is the simplest, Google’s a bit more challenging, and TSLA’s the most difficult.

    Now, we require TSLA’s world model to create an AI that can continuously recursively and in real-time produce truth tests.

    And we need eventually neuromorphic hardware (many tiny simple processors with a bit of local memory) to circumvent the backpropagation cost problem (and the alternatives, and evolve closer to real-time learning. (FWIW recent innovations in solving the cost problem has been exciting and is gaining popularity – thanks to one of the fathers of the field.)

    The combination of local truth testing of tangible questions and escalation to distant central truth testing for increasingly abstract questions is the holy grail of imitating the human mind and its use of collective minds as a market for knowledge and decisions.

    (BTW: Thanks #TwitterDev for long-form tweets. It’s finally possible to inform with Twitter instead of just virtue signal and generate conflict by promoting viscous cycles of moral outrage for dopamine junkies. 😉 )

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1626615439638798337

  • RT @ContraFabianist: @curtdoolittle Scales of cooperation as a Hierarchy of deci

    RT @ContraFabianist: @curtdoolittle Scales of cooperation as a Hierarchy of decidability:

    Decidability by natural limits>action (possible)…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-17 21:52:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626701038781702146

  • WHY DOES DECIDABILITY APPEAL TO THE RIGHT? There is nothing on the left to say m

    WHY DOES DECIDABILITY APPEAL TO THE RIGHT?

    There is nothing on the left to say meaningfully. The left tries to create impossible hypothetical, utopian “goods” in conflict with not only the right but with the laws of the universe.

    The right tries to prohibit possible and empirical “bads” according to the laws of the universe, and leaves it to the people to create goods, and only the people through the government, and only when satisfying the demand for concurrency, as a last resort – against the wishes of the left.

    The truth only has utility in matters of dispute. I work in truth, or rather in the identification and explanation of ignorance, error, bias, deceit, fraud, sedition and treason.

    For this reason, anything I say that is true and meaningful will attract the right. Because the right is the only group interested in the Truth.

    And that’s because nearly everything the left says is false, impossible, or a lie.

    That doesn’t mean that we can publicly produce goods where markets are limited. It means that there are always ways of assisting limited markets without ending markets.

    For example, the govt could own facilities, and negotiate prices for drugs and supplies and maintenance – yet let the market, especially for doctors, nurses, and specialists are determined by patients. With citizen’s accounts on the Singapore model pay the people, and the government pays the rest. This avoids the present problem of administration destroying competency and paying itself in medicine, academia, and government.

    I don’t really like being an outlier (outcast). But here we are.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-17 20:46:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626684604860989440

  • PART II: THE SCIENCE OF DECIDABILITY APPLIED TO LAW In my work, I want to solve

    PART II:

    THE SCIENCE OF DECIDABILITY APPLIED TO LAW

    In my work, I want to solve the problem of preserving decidability, the science of the natural law of cooperation, constitutions of it, common law, and concurrent legislation under it.

    So in this sense, I judge constitutions,…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-17 17:23:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626633443629989900

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626633306555940882

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    Q: “Curt doesn’t know as much about the law as he thinks he does.”
    A: Good argument. I haven’t passed a bar exam. And I would never want to ‘lawyer’ for a living.

    However, there is a difference between extant jurisprudence and ‘lawyering’ as thought and practiced, vs the science of decidability, uniting the sciences with it, applying that science by completing the natural law program (scientific law), and reforming constitutions, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court, and then a reformation of the law, constitution, institutions, legislation, regulation, and findings of the law.

    In other words, there is a difference between a scientist, an engineer, and a craftsman. Judges and lawyers are craftsmen. They practice ‘lawyering’, as said by our dearly deceased Saint Judge Antonin Scalia. I work on and produce the science and logic (computability) of law proper and its application to legislating, judging, and lawyering.

    PART 1
    PART 2

    PART 1:

    WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?

    1. Well, the practice of law “Lawyering” consists largely of knowing:

    … a) How to research and argue law. Any decent law school professor will say they’re teaching you how to think about the law. But you’ll forget most of what you learn in law school quickly. It’s more important that you know how to read, interpret, apply, and argue local, state, federal and constitutional law than it is that you recall everything in the body of law.

    … b) In particular, the law of Civil and Criminal Procedure. Meaning the terms, processes, and procedures of conducting ‘lawyering’ in court. Civil procedure is the most important subject in law school, because it consists of the rules within which you can conduct your ‘lawyering’. The difference is criminal procedure sets a high bar for the state and a very high bar for defending individual’s rights against the state.

    … c) Some depth in whatever specialization(s) of the law you work within. People tend to specialize in very difficult matters (criminal) difficult (tax, technology, corporate, mergers and acquisitions, international law) or in mass market law (divorce, family, bankruptcy, civil court), or in the big boy games of appeals, supreme court.

    In reality, if you read documents from a few cases, especially in appeals courts, you can judge a lawyer by his or her arguments as easily as you can any other student papers in college. 😉

    .. d) The problems that arise in expectations of the people vs lawyers and judges. It’s hard for inexperienced people to imagine the many ways people commit harms or crimes. But the court doesn’t have to imagine, it has encountered them and has to decide them. So, that means the courts have to account for all varieties of complex human interactions and interactions between those actions and laws. So the court defends against things you would never do by design, but are still violations of the law. And your opponent’s desire is to cast your actions as intentional – even if ignorant or accidental. In other words, the scope of reasonable conditions that each of us assumes is small than the scope of actions the courts account for. This is why those of us who specialize in legal theory prefer simple laws. And it’s why the court grants you the benefit of the doubt if it can do so.

    … e) the law as practiced is neither what’s promised to us, what’s moral, or what’s ethical. (This is what I work on fixing). And you must ‘get over it’ to practice law. (I can’t and won’t get over it. I’d rather fix the law instead. 😉 )

    ( more in Part II … )

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1626633306555940882

  • PART II: THE SCIENCE OF DECIDABILITY APPLIED TO LAW In my work, I want to solve

    PART II:

    THE SCIENCE OF DECIDABILITY APPLIED TO LAW

    In my work, I want to solve the problem of preserving decidability, the science of the natural law of cooperation, constitutions of it, common law, and concurrent legislation under it.

    So in this sense, I judge constitutions, legislation, regulation, and command, by the science of decidability, the science of the natural law of cooperation (truth, reciprocity, ethics, morality), by their **Deviation from The Natural Law**, then judge whether the definition of law used, the constitution, it’s articles, the legislation, regulation under it, and the commands of the military or state in emergencies, et all are truthful, ethical, moral, and legitimate.

    Now my work only says (a) what’s legitimate law( origin, constitution, legislation, regulation, command) (b) how to fix an illegitimate law. (c) and how to fix policies such that they are legal and legitimate.

    So think of it as that there exits a hierarchy of courts, and I work on what would be the court of the law itself, rather than the court of the constitution (the supreme court), or the subsidiary courts (Criminal, Civil, Administrative, and Appeals.). Note that one of the US problems is that we don’t have an administrative court system for suits against the state and its actors.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-17 17:23:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626633443478994960

  • Q: “Curt doesn’t know as much about the law as he thinks he does.” A: Good argum

    Q: “Curt doesn’t know as much about the law as he thinks he does.”
    A: Good argument. I haven’t passed a bar exam. And I would never want to ‘lawyer’ for a living.

    However, there is a difference between extant jurisprudence and ‘lawyering’ as thought and practiced, vs the science of decidability, uniting the sciences with it, applying that science by completing the natural law program (scientific law), and reforming constitutions, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court, and then a reformation of the law, constitution, institutions, legislation, regulation, and findings of the law.

    In other words, there is a difference between a scientist, an engineer, and a craftsman. Judges and lawyers are craftsmen. They practice ‘lawyering’, as said by our dearly deceased Saint Judge Antonin Scalia. I work on and produce the science and logic (computability) of law proper and its application to legislating, judging, and lawyering.

    PART 1
    PART 2

    PART 1:

    WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?

    1. Well, the practice of law “Lawyering” consists largely of knowing:

    … a) How to research and argue law. Any decent law school professor will say they’re teaching you how to think about the law. But you’ll forget most of what you learn in law school quickly. It’s more important that you know how to read, interpret, apply, and argue local, state, federal and constitutional law than it is that you recall everything in the body of law.

    … b) In particular, the law of Civil and Criminal Procedure. Meaning the terms, processes, and procedures of conducting ‘lawyering’ in court. Civil procedure is the most important subject in law school, because it consists of the rules within which you can conduct your ‘lawyering’. The difference is criminal procedure sets a high bar for the state and a very high bar for defending individual’s rights against the state.

    … c) Some depth in whatever specialization(s) of the law you work within. People tend to specialize in very difficult matters (criminal) difficult (tax, technology, corporate, mergers and acquisitions, international law) or in mass market law (divorce, family, bankruptcy, civil court), or in the big boy games of appeals, supreme court.

    In reality, if you read documents from a few cases, especially in appeals courts, you can judge a lawyer by his or her arguments as easily as you can any other student papers in college. 😉

    .. d) The problems that arise in expectations of the people vs lawyers and judges. It’s hard for inexperienced people to imagine the many ways people commit harms or crimes. But the court doesn’t have to imagine, it has encountered them and has to decide them. So, that means the courts have to account for all varieties of complex human interactions and interactions between those actions and laws. So the court defends against things you would never do by design, but are still violations of the law. And your opponent’s desire is to cast your actions as intentional – even if ignorant or accidental. In other words, the scope of reasonable conditions that each of us assumes is small than the scope of actions the courts account for. This is why those of us who specialize in legal theory prefer simple laws. And it’s why the court grants you the benefit of the doubt if it can do so.

    … e) the law as practiced is neither what’s promised to us, what’s moral, or what’s ethical. (This is what I work on fixing). And you must ‘get over it’ to practice law. (I can’t and won’t get over it. I’d rather fix the law instead. 😉 )

    ( more in Part II … )

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-17 17:22:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626633306555940882

  • If you find better work than mine on the truth please tell me. Tip: you won’t. S

    If you find better work than mine on the truth please tell me.

    Tip: you won’t.

    See:
    Decidability
    Truthfulness
    Reciprocity
    Demonstrated Interest

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-15 20:51:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1625960980738895873

    Reply addressees: @GPEditor

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1625956179632422920

  • I mean, what’s the problem with most ‘complexity’? We have no method for account

    I mean, what’s the problem with most ‘complexity’? We have no method for accounting before computers, lots of memory, bayesian categorizing and prediction, that can measure and reduce to analogy to experience. I mean, mathematical reducibility, computational reducibility, cognitive reducibility is the same freaking problem: how to make it simple enough for us to ‘compare’.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-14 17:32:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1625548491966627844

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1625543426199650305

  • Thinking: Deeper: knowingly unsolvable problems are not hard problems. All hard

    Thinking: Deeper: knowingly unsolvable problems are not hard problems. All hard problems are execution problems.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-10 20:30:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1624143912288849936

    Reply addressees: @gonedata

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1624142070658088960

  • (All: and the reason behind my question is to test intuitive reactions to adding

    (All: and the reason behind my question is to test intuitive reactions to adding computation to the sequence, as the result of science, by reduction to first principles producing a single, universally commensurable, paradigm, vocabulary, grammar, and logic of measurement.)

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-08 00:30:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1623117007607529473

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1622975549776748544

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    Again. You study theology becauase you can’t study philosophy. You study philosophy becuase you can’t study science. You study science because you can’t study evolutionary computation. Climbing that ladder is hard because it requires much more knowledge and rigor at every rung.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1622975549776748544