Theme: Decidability

  • How doesnt universal falsification using operational construction using the comp

    How doesnt universal falsification using operational construction using the complete set of first principles, from the one fist principle, solve the problem of universal falsification of formal, physical, behavioral, and evolutionary science? lol?


    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-20 21:46:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1484281211975618563

    Reply addressees: @ChristIsKing200

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1484279586175078400

  • @The_Chosen @rfnarchive @RadioFreeNorthwest I have no idea where this clown is g

    @The_Chosen @rfnarchive @RadioFreeNorthwest

    I have no idea where this clown is getting his ideas. But we know there is a severe problem of logical dependency that radically increases as IQs drop below 100. I have traditionally attributed this lack of ability to intellectual dishonesty, moral terpitude, psychological problems, or mental defects. But the truth is half of the population can’t draw a logical inference or maintain logical dependencies. And even then only very few can follow a chain of reasoning. And I use long chains of reasoning to describe and teach causality.

    And unfortunately these poor idiots are ostracized in real life, but we can’t as easily avoid and silence them online. This is why we need to clean house of the idiots or we have to write off social media, becasue they destroy every adult conversation by vomiting their stupidity on it.

    Let me help others:

    LAWS:

    1) Laws of Nature: Scientific Laws, Behavioral Laws, Evolutionary Laws, and the Logical Laws we use to describe them.

    2) Laws of Man: Natural Law, Constitutional Law, FIndings of the Court (Judicial Law), Legislative Law, Regulatory Law, Command Law.

    As far as I can tell, the above accusatory imbecile must be confusing the Law of Reciprocity, that is a Behavioral Law, within the Laws of Nature, which is means scientific law, with a Law of man.

    Now, It’s pretty hard for me to imagine being that stupid and ignorant. But you know, I have ‘smart people disease’ which is a common inability to symathize or empathize across more than 30 IQ points (two standard deviations) of ability. That means that If you can’t get a college education in the STEM fields I probably can’t imagine how dumb you are. Ok? So I can’t anticipate what you would think. This is why knowledge ‘trickles down’ and is translated about every standard deviation from the scientific to the colloquial by a hierarchy of communicators.

    General Rule in such matters.
    1) I am very good at what I do. I don’t know anyone living or dead that’s even close. Though there are at least four emerging, one in mathematics, two in physics, and one in artificial intelligence. This is because if you don’t know tne limits of mathematics, the problems of AI and what we have learned from Behavioral Economics, you are the equivalent of a theologian in scientific age. You’re ‘behind’. You lack a fundamental literacy for understanding contemporary modernity. So don’t pretend overconfidence. Especially if you’ve malinvested in ideology of philosophy or theology, or especially 20th century behavioral pseudoscience.

    2) Ergo, before you assume I am wrong, just fucking use good manners and ask a question rather than make an accusation. It’s called agency. It’s called responsibility. It’s called adulthood. And that’s civil behavior. I am one of the only people that will spend time with the public. And moreover, I’m the only one actually working in the interests of the Right …. even the nitwit right. Fk.

    Signed
    Exasperated


    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-19 17:22:49 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107650283545526068

  • Yes this question is decidable. (a) unfortunately, eggs are about the best food

    Yes this question is decidable. (a) unfortunately, eggs are about the best food you can eat (b) these products are bad for yo (c) they’re not honestly named – but I doubt would fool anyone. (d) if you intuit it dishonestly that’s actually the empirical measure of dishonesty.


    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-19 01:08:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1483607158734434310

    Reply addressees: @BasedLawyer @CrownedCaribou @PresentWitness_ @ThruTheHayes

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1483532842319720454

  • I don’t think you mean that to be as ‘dumb’ as it is on its face. A market is a

    I don’t think you mean that to be as ‘dumb’ as it is on its face.
    A market is a heuristic process.
    All markets are heuristic processes
    Epistemology is a market process.
    Thought is a market process.
    Consciousness is a market process.
    Neural development is a market process.


    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-18 17:31:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1483492175581171724

    Reply addressees: @roguebroadcast

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1483488824328011778

  • FOR THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN LEARNING P-LAW (The Science of Decidability and

    FOR THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN LEARNING P-LAW
    (The Science of Decidability and Unification of The Sciences)

    — “Hi just a curious individual here who read your bio and was interested. Specifically if you have published any research paper, book or anything that could introduce me to some of your work.” —

    My work is online in video on youtube and on the institute site on the web.

    The Natural Law Institute on youtube
    youtube.com/channel/UCpJykKGRQ4601DzVkkGk7bA/

    and The Natural Law iIstitute on the web.
    naturallawinstitute.com

    CAUTION: It is a bit like learning economics, programming, and law at the same time. It’s not the kind of thing you pick up easily. It’s more a synthesis of all stem courses into a set of first principles – the unification of the sciences.

    It’s like the Darwinian evolution in biology for the behavioral sciences. Except it’s harder. lol


    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-18 17:27:57 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107644641458316481

  • My goal is to articulate the laws of nature, including the Natural Law as a form

    My goal is to articulate the laws of nature, including the Natural Law as a formal logic and science of decidability. However, the result is to facilitate the formation of any political, economic, and social order people desire – as long as they bear the consequences of it. πŸ˜‰

    So what we are trying to produce is the most basic general rule of universal explanation and this is it. “Ternary logic of evolutionary computation.”

    it’s my responsibility to render it accessible, and I’ve only been doing that since this fall. And while it is the universal first principle, that first principle is expressed in evolutionary computation and therefore evolutionary expression in all things.


    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-12 18:28:19 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107610904938210659

  • My goal is to articulate the laws of nature, including the Natural Law as a form

    My goal is to articulate the laws of nature, including the Natural Law as a formal logic and science of decidability. However, the result is to facilitate the formation of any political, economic, and social order people desire – as long as they bear the consequences of it. πŸ˜‰


    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-11 18:45:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1480974039741087752

  • For those that are interested: 1) What is the difference in the means of testing

    For those that are interested:
    1) What is the difference in the means of testing for falsehood in philosophy, law, and science?
    2) Proposition for philosophy and logic: Is the requirement for continuous recursive disambiguation a better test than non-contradiction?


    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-11 16:21:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1480937844650741765

    Reply addressees: @philosophybites

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1480623860466786310


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @philosophybites Painful truth: philosophy as other than the study of intellectual history – meaning the evolution of the sciences – is (empirically) dead. So ‘interesting’ is a useful means of evading that fact, where ‘best’ would have in the past. Now: Truth=Science, Preference=Philosophy.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1480623860466786310

  • Unlike ideology to ‘sell or subdue’ or philosophy to ‘persuade or evade’, or sci

    Unlike ideology to ‘sell or subdue’ or philosophy to ‘persuade or evade’, or science and logic to ‘correct or falsify’, the law is prosecutorial because it doesn’t decide by error or preference, but by criminality: violations of irreciprocity: The most discursively offensive.


    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-10 18:32:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1480608511751069698

  • I suspect an ai could raise questions as to whether one can claim a statement is

    I suspect an ai could raise questions as to whether one can claim a statement is sufficiently unambiguous, consistent and correspondent. But given that there is no logical closure and AI’s are always only predictive then ai’s can only overcome human bias and deceit not ignorance.


    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-07 19:13:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1479531742805561344

    Reply addressees: @ThruTheHayes @Scott_Throne @LukeWeinhagen @toodarkmark

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1479530557184880643