Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • Martin and I have a very small number of disagreements and they are usually to d

    Martin and I have a very small number of disagreements and they are usually to do with either (a) the meaning of words (which is our job) or (b) what is preferable and possible for humans to achieve.
    Martin is a continental and more pessimistic.
    I’m an anglo and more optimistic.
    These are cultural differences that may in fact be irreconcilable because they are dependent upon geography, neighbors, economy, institutions, and population sizes.
    As for the authority issue I acknowledge martin is correct but there is no other term in the english language other than
    – Illegitimate arbitrary discretionary authority w/o responsibility
    vs
    – legitimate rules based authority as responsibility.
    So we are merely struggling because we both mean the latter is good but the former is bad. 😉

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS @Asuka_On_Drugs @whatifalthist

    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-29 17:04:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1829203429895307264

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1829177997347422579

  • Technically speaking: – “>” refers to a spectrum of states that are not quantita

    Technically speaking:
    – “>” refers to a spectrum of states that are not quantitatively reducible, but are qualitatively.
    – “->” refers to “leads to”

    Though I have been known to screw it up now and then. lol 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-23 02:19:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1826806531846992152

    Reply addressees: @Archaic3one

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1826804486662488341

  • Working on universal grammar with brad (meta-science) “The Graveyard of Fictiona

    Working on universal grammar with brad (meta-science)

    “The Graveyard of Fictionalisms”-Brad
    (It’s all humans can do, these dimensions: )
    1. Social -> Spiritual, anthropomorphic (others control)
    2. Mechanical -> Magical, Alchemical ( I control)
    3. Calculative -> Numerological presumption of knowledge from disorder beyond perception
    4. Verbal -> sophistry -> philosophy, idealism, (words refer to things that don’t exist, should or )

    “It’s where the sacred cows are all buried.”-Brad.
    “It’s the Afghanistan of empires of the mind”-Brad

    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-23 00:47:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1826783242260742144

  • They are using coding as a test because (a) the market of early adopters favors

    They are using coding as a test because (a) the market of early adopters favors it, and it produces the highest early adopter returns. (b) The vocabulary and grammar of coding is operational to begin with so unlike ordinary language, where we must deduce or infer the operations (actions) necessary for each change in state, in programming the declarations are openly stated. (c) as such ordinarly language is logic (which requires understanding of embodiment (our physical and mental possibilities)
    In other words, failure to compile is easier than failure to understand simply because of the scope of premises and references, data types and set of possible operations. Ergo – it’s pre-calculated reason so to speak.

    Reply addressees: @ProperlyAds @JimLeadGen

    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-17 22:46:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824941011115884544

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824921178496176153

  • AI’s LIMITED ABILITY TO “REASON”. 1) Symbols are abstractions of language. Each

    AI’s LIMITED ABILITY TO “REASON”.
    1) Symbols are abstractions of language. Each symbol requiring a substantial investment in self-training by repetition.
    2) language itself does in fact follow a data structure. Each word consists of a set of dimensions related to all other words by some distance or other.
    3) as such, as in many things, mathematical reducibility is a smaller set with more inference than computational or linguistic reducibility, and as such is more prone to errors of inference (probability).
    4) We are following the Pareto distribution of all knowledge production. Meaning that the progress we have made covers 80% of the problem. But the majority of work necessary for our desired utility (reduction of error bars) requires many more multiples of incremental investment than those made so far.
    5) As such this is why we must identify ‘holes’ in reasoning and produce training in specific fields that ‘fills those holes’ and as such produces the inference and reduction of error that is desired.
    6) At present these ai’s are exceptional at the breadth of knowledge available AND summarizing and generalizing from that knowledge. However, just as the problem of induction has been well understood for hundreds of years, the challenge of evolving from generalization to deduction to induction is a long path that few humans are able to follow given years of practice.
    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @RokoMijic

    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-17 22:42:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824940007439908864

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824855639723524265

  • DISAMBIGUATING MEANS OF COMMITMENT OF ASSURANCES OF A CLAIM: |Assurancess|: Warr

    DISAMBIGUATING MEANS OF COMMITMENT OF ASSURANCES OF A CLAIM:
    |Assurancess|: Warranty > Guarantee > Insurance > Ensurance

    1. Warranty: A written promise to repair or replace a product if defects occur within a specified period.
    Typically covers specific defects in materials and workmanship.
    Usually provided by the manufacturer and has a defined time frame.

    2. Guarantee: A broader promise of quality, performance, or satisfaction.
    Can cover various aspects beyond just defects.
    May be offered by manufacturers, retailers, or service providers.

    3. Insurance: A contract providing financial protection against specified future risks or losses.
    Involves regular premium payments to an insurance company.
    Highly regulated and legally binding.

    4. Ensurance (as a neologism):A commitment to ensure a specific outcome or state.
    Could involve ongoing actions or processes to maintain a certain condition.
    Might be used in contexts where “guarantee” is too broad and “warranty” too narrow.

    [ Definitions ]

    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-02 22:49:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1819505872646905856

  • Michael (all); The point you’re making is illustrating the difference between ma

    Michael (all);
    The point you’re making is illustrating the difference between mathematics constructed as a language of sets (ideal) vs mathematics as a language of correspondence (real).
    And that the problems that have emerged in mathematics and by externality with physics have arisen because of that idealism and the externalization of its consequences – of instead of retention of the representation of mathematical relations as consistent and correspondent whether physical or verbal causal limits – it’s all just names relations comparisons and agreements.
    So again, by Cantor, Bohr, and Einstein (as well as others) reversing Descartes, and re-platonizing mathematics, we have seen consequences in all disciplines from physical to philosophy, and even (in my field) behavioral and macro economics.
    I am not sure just how much of the ‘decline’ in progress is due to this set of ignorance and error producing very profound metaphysical presumptions in all other fields – a general decline in the ability to think clearly.

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @MichaelSurrago @Plinz

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-30 21:21:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818396572964864000

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818396324720488677

  • I can see. But what I see is practice. But the practice of mathematics is quite

    I can see. But what I see is practice. But the practice of mathematics is quite different from the foundations of it, and the meaning of those foundations in the context of all foundations of all knowledge.
    Again, mathematics is just another grammar (paradigm, vocabular, logic, syntax), but it is a reductive grammar limited to positional (unique) names (nouns), operations (verbs), and agreements (relations). By relying only on positional names (ratios), operations, and tests of equilibria, our ability both to generalize (references, abstractions) into context independence, scale independence, and time independence is achieved.

    Reply addressees: @matterasmachine @Plinz

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-30 20:10:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818378611268706304

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818302637923574094

  • Invert the question, if math is just another grammar, and all grammars adhere to

    Invert the question, if math is just another grammar, and all grammars adhere to the universal grammar (language), then the unification of the grammars is possible if we universalize that grammar by reforming each discipline into one universal logic of universal commensurability. If so, then why should the mathematicians any more than the scientists of philosophers base their foundations on that which is false and produces externalities? So in other words, what does math as it is practiced have to do with everything else?

    (And yes I realize that this is a subject that is difficult to grasp without rather exhaustive studying the consequences of ‘bad math’. I mean, Descartes restores the european tradition and Einstein and Bohr devolve it again? That’s only possible because the foundations are sets rather than grammars.)

    Reply addressees: @matterasmachine @Plinz

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-30 14:59:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818300298512760833

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818281708745363818

  • Joscha: Still thinking about this. (a) Yes it’s more intuitive to think in spati

    Joscha: Still thinking about this.
    (a) Yes it’s more intuitive to think in spatial terms, and (b) yes it’s more burdensome to think in verbal(algebraic) terms
    (c) But optimally, once a model is sufficiently complex, we would like to visualize in spatial terms and describe in algebraic terms.
    (d) Most of what’s wrong in physics we can blame on confusing einstein and bohr. Einstein worked from mental imagery the expressed in mathematical terms – even if he had to invent a nonsense-concept like space-time as a variable. Bohr on the other hand, just gave up on models altogether. So we have two founders of present physics who, making two different errors precisely because they pursued the verbal rather than spatial in some aspect of their work, created generations of chaos among well meaning fools who did not grasp the foundations of mathematics or understand itt derived from computation.

    Reply addressees: @Plinz

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-30 14:26:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818292086698917888

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818022862302925090