Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • A math formula, a statement in formal logic, a physics equation, a chemistry ske

    A math formula, a statement in formal logic, a physics equation, a chemistry skeletal formula, an electronic circuit, an assembly language program, most economics, a set of blueprints, a balance sheet, a good portion of legislation, regulation and law, and certainly my work are ‘word salad’ to those ignorant of the skills necessary to understand them. If you interpret something as word salad you are simply identifying that which your ignorant of. 😉

    Reply addressees: @TOEwithCurt

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-12 19:39:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789742154002083840

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789738461789831598

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    Chris Langan is on Curt Jaimungal’s TOE (@TOEwithCurt) today. Speaking nonsense again, and Curt isn’t capable of handling him. It’s funny that I can find some truth in what Chris says but he’s a bit of a phenomenalist and says ‘start with perception’.
    But that’s rather silly since the universe is constructed from trivial rules, everything in it is emergent from those trivial rules, including the neurons that emerge from those same principles.
    The universe consists of the defeat of entropy by the production of density that survives in persistent relations – and neurons identify sets of persistent relations.
    The only theory we need is evolutionary computation by discovery of stable relations, and the hierarchy of emergent possibilities for recombination and the possible operations they can perform, that emerge from these assemblies – what we call disciplines.
    So of course he doesn’t understand Wolfram as simply running evolutionary simulations to identify emergences.
    Consequence of combinations are are computationally (operationally reducible) but they are not computationally predictable, nor are they mathematically reducible and so cannot be mathematically predictable.
    It’s not that complicated.
    CD

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1789738461789831598

  • The Universal Grammar of Language: Measuring Existence (~750 Words) Language is

    The Universal Grammar of Language: Measuring Existence

    (~750 Words) Language is a system of measurement, made commensurable using marginal indifference in body, sense, and perception, describing all of existence that’s reducible to analogy of human experience, consisting of a sequential stream of sounds or symbols, producing increasing precision(disambiguation), that by the process of continuous recursive disambiguation(sentences) of an identity(concept, experience, scene) upon which we consent to (agree to) some degree of shared meaning (shared experience), using the universal grammar of language, of evolution, of physics, of the quantum background, of existence: Evolutionary Computation by continuous recursive disambiguation of entropy(energy, disorder) into negative entropy(mass, order), thus creating complexity by the defeat of entropy. We can describe the universe because language relies on the same logic as the universe.
    Ok so that’s high level how language works, and why it’s a sharable experience, and why we can gradually describe more of the universe with it – because it’s following the same rules as the evolution of all else in existence.
    But what ‘measurements’ does language consist of? Words. All words are names. Names of things that don’t change (nouns, pronouns, adjectives), names of things that are changing some state or other (verbs, adverbs,), names of their relations.
    How does arithmetic differs from language? Ordinary language consists of names of states, or changing states. So we can use verbs for actions(run), nouns to generalize them(movement), and adjectives that generalize temporary states (motionless).
    Vocabularies consist of words that serve the need for the totality of expression in a population in human life.
    Paradigms consist of subsets of vocabulary defining or limiting the dimensions permissible in the use of vocabulary, logic, grammar and syntax.
    Human macro-paradigms are: |Paradigmatic Evolution|: Embodiment > Anthropomorphism(counting) > Mythology(Arithmetic) > Religion(Math) > Philosophy(Geometry) > Empiricism(Algebra) > Science(Calculus) > Operationalism(Construction).
    The paradigm of Arithmetic is extremely simple. 1. All names consist of ratios to whatever identity we choose to reference. 2. All operators are +, -, *, /, =. 3. All results of operations are equal, unequal, and unequal by less than or more than.
    And the Consequences of the Vocabulary, Logic, Grammar and Syntax of Arithmetic are Very Simple
    1. Arithmetic is an extremely minimal language that consists of names (digits, glyphs of position (positional vocabulary)), phrases (positional names), verbs (operators), and agreements (unequal, equal, and modifiers, less than and more than.)
    2. The names are however context independent: they can refer to anything we choose.
    3. Positional names are unique: so they are memory, conflation, inflation, and ambiguity independent.
    4. Operations on positional names are also deterministic, operationally closed, logically closed, and ambiguity invariant, and as such arithmetic operations are interpretation independent.
    5. Positional names are unlimited in construction. So by combining unlimited construction and context independence we achieve scale independence.
    6. We perform mathematics in our minds even if we record it with tools. As such arithmetic operations are also time and cost independent.
    7. And given that it can be written, arithmetic is memory, and visualization independent.
    CLOSING
    So, while ordinary language that describes the existential world is vulnerable to context, ambiguity interpretation, scale, time, and cost variation, arithmetic REMOVES THOSE DIMENSIONS from the paradigm, with it’s simple paradigm, vocabulary, logic, and grammar. As such we have no choice but to follow simple rules of addition subtraction, multiplication and division in order to sense, perceive, and judge that which is otherwise beyond our perception, comprehension, memory, and reason.
    This is why arithmetic works.
    It’s an innovation in language and writing that extends our capacity beyond our native memory perception and reason.
    And when combined with the balance scale of double entry accounting lets us weigh and measure complex human cooperation at extraordinary scale and complexity over extraordinary time.
    Now, this is the basis of understanding all paradigms. What dimensions, terms, and agreements are necessary and which are prohibited in order to prevent human vulnerability to variations in context, ambiguity, interpretation, scale, time, and cost – and lying.
    The unification of the sciences whether formal (language and logic), physical, behavioral, or evolutionary, can be achieved through this same analysis and the disambiguation of terms such that they are universal across the sciences instead of unique to them, and the uniqueness necessary in the sciences is derived from and explain d by the universal definitions that are constructed from the first principles: evolutionary computation of the defeat of entropy by the discovery of persistency in the form of ever increasing organizations of complex mass.
    Cheers Curt Doolittle The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-07 04:32:39 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1787702060579750122

  • (~750 Words) Language is a system of measurement, made commensurable using margi

    (~750 Words)
    Language is a system of measurement, made commensurable using marginal indifference in body, sense, and perception, describing all of existence that’s reducible to analogy of human experience, consisting of a sequential stream of sounds or symbols, producing increasing precision(disambiguation), that by the process of continuous recursive disambiguation(sentences) of an identity(concept, experience, scene) upon which we consent to (agree to) some degree of shared meaning (shared experience), using the universal grammar of language, of evolution, of physics, of the quantum background, of existence: Evolutionary Computation by continuous recursive disambiguation of entropy(energy, disorder) into negative entropy(mass, order), thus creating complexity by the defeat of entropy. We can describe the universe because language relies on the same logic as the universe.

    Ok so that’s high level how language works, and why it’s a sharable experience, and why we can gradually describe more of the universe with it – because it’s following the same rules as the evolution of all else in existence.

    But what ‘measurements’ does language consist of?
    Words. All words are names. Names of things that don’t change (nouns, pronouns, adjectives), names of things that are changing some state or other (verbs, adverbs,), names of their relations.

    How does arithmetic differs from language?
    Ordinary language consists of names of states, or changing states. So we can use verbs for actions(run), nouns to generalize them(movement), and adjectives that generalize temporary states (motionless).

    Vocabularies consist of words that serve the need for the totality of expression in a population in human life.

    Paradigms consist of subsets of vocabulary defining or limiting the dimensions permissible in the use of vocabulary, logic, grammar and syntax.

    Human macro-paradigms are:
    |Paradigmatic Evolution|: Embodiment > Anthropomorphism(counting) > Mythology(Arithmetic) > Religion(Math) > Philosophy(Geometry) > Empiricism(Algebra) > Science(Calculus) > Operationalism(Construction).

    The paradigm of Arithmetic is extremely simple.
    1. All names consist of ratios to whatever identity we choose to reference.
    2. All operators are +, -, *, /, =.
    3. All results of operations are equal, unequal, and unequal by less than or more than.

    And the Consequences of the Vocabulary, Logic, Grammar and Syntax of Arithmetic are Very Simple

    1. Arithmetic is an extremely minimal language that consists of names (digits, glyphs of position (positional vocabulary)), phrases (positional names), verbs (operators), and agreements (unequal, equal, and modifiers, less than and more than.)

    2. The names are however context independent: they can refer to anything we choose.

    3. Positional names are unique: so they are memory, conflation, inflation, and ambiguity independent.

    4. Operations on positional names are also deterministic, operationally closed, logically closed, and ambiguity invariant, and as such arithmetic operations are interpretation independent.

    5. Positional names are unlimited in construction. So by combining unlimited construction and context independence we achieve scale independence.

    6. We perform mathematics in our minds even if we record it with tools. As such arithmetic operations are also time and cost independent.

    7. And given that it can be written, arithmetic is memory, and visualization independent.

    CLOSING

    So, while ordinary language that describes the existential world is vulnerable to context, ambiguity interpretation, scale, time, and cost variation, arithmetic REMOVES THOSE DIMENSIONS from the paradigm, with it’s simple paradigm, vocabulary, logic, and grammar. As such we have no choice but to follow simple rules of addition subtraction, multiplication and division in order to sense, perceive, and judge that which is otherwise beyond our perception, comprehension, memory, and reason.

    This is why arithmetic works.

    It’s an innovation in language and writing that extends our capacity beyond our native memory perception and reason.

    And when combined with the balance scale of double entry accounting lets us weigh and measure complex human cooperation at extraordinary scale and complexity over extraordinary time.

    Now, this is the basis of understanding all paradigms. What dimensions, terms, and agreements are necessary and which are prohibited in order to prevent human vulnerability to variations in context, ambiguity, interpretation, scale, time, and cost – and lying.

    The unification of the sciences whether formal (language and logic), physical, behavioral, or evolutionary, can be achieved through this same analysis and the disambiguation of terms such that they are universal across the sciences instead of unique to them, and the uniqueness necessary in the sciences is derived from and explain d by the universal definitions that are constructed from the first principles: evolutionary computation of the defeat of entropy by the discovery of persistency in the form of ever increasing organizations of complex mass.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-07 04:24:26 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1787699993517686784

  • IS LOGIC OR LANGUAGE CAUSAL TO THE OTHER? Is logic dependent upon the language f

    IS LOGIC OR LANGUAGE CAUSAL TO THE OTHER?
    Is logic dependent upon the language facility, or is language dependent upon the logical facility?

    Well, logic is the application of the origin of the nervous system in the sequence of acquisition of calories, the movement then, with the addition of memory, wayfinding (navigation), and it’s search for and test of identity, consistency, correspondence, and action to bring about change (movement).

    So while there is a simple logic to evolutionary computation in the physical and biological domains, logic in the neurological domain exists prior to all other faculties the depend upon memory: the test of constant, regular, transient, inconsistent relations between stimuli in time on Bayesian scales our brains and minds are incapable of introspection upon, and require our research into the collective cooperative organization of their function to understand.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-07 02:00:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1787663697583779841

  • What Does Language Consist of And Why Does It Work? Language is a system of meas

    What Does Language Consist of And Why Does It Work?
    Language is a system of measurement, made commensurable using marginal indifference in body, sense, and perception, describing all of existence that’s reducible to analogy of human experience, consisting of a sequential stream of sounds or symbols, producing increasing precision(disambiguation), that by the process of continuous recursive disambiguation(sentences) of an identity(concept, experience, scene) upon which we consent to (agree to) some degree of shared meaning (shared experience), using the universal grammar of language, of evolution, of physics, of the quantum background, of existence: Evolutionary Computation by continuous recursive disambiguation of entropy(energy, disorder) into negative entropy(mass, order), thus creating complexity by the defeat of entropy. We can describe the universe because language relies on the same logic as the universe.

    Ok so that’s high level how language works, and why it’s a sharable experience, and why we can gradually describe more of the universe with it – because it’s following the same rules as the evolution of all else in existence.

    But what ‘measurements’ does language consist of?
    Words. All words are names. Names of things that don’t change (nouns, pronouns, adjectives), names of things that are changing some state or other (verbs, adverbs,), names of their relations

    How does arithmetic differs from language?
    Ordinary language consists of names of states, or changing states. So we can use verbs for actions(run), nouns to generalize them(movement), and adjectives that generalize temporary states (motionless).

    Vocabularies consist of words that serve the need for the totality of expression in a population in human life.

    Paradigms consist of subsets of vocabulary defining or limiting the dimensions permissible in the use of vocabulary, logic, grammar and syntax.

    Human macro-paradigms are:
    |Paradigmatic Evolution|: Embodiment > Anthropomorphism(counting) > Mythology(Arithmetic) > Religion(Math) > Philosophy(Geometry) > Empiricism(Algebra) > Science(Calculus) > Operationalism(Construction).

    The paradigm of Arithmetic is extremely simple.
    1. All names consist of ratios to whatever identity we choose to reference.
    2. All operators are +, -, *, /, =.
    3. All results of operations are equal, unequal, and unequal by less than or more than.

    And the Consequences of the Vocabulary, Grammar and Syntax are Very Simple
    1. Arithmetic is an extremely minimal language that consists of names (digits, glyps of position (positional vocabulary)), phrases (positional names), verbs (operators), and agreements (unequal, equal, and modifiers, less than and more than.)
    2. The names are however context independent: they can refer to anything we choose.
    3. Positional names are unique: so they are memory, conflation, inflation, and ambiguity independent.
    4. Operations on positional names are also deterministic, operationally closed, logically closed, and ambiguity invariant, and as such arithmetic operations are interpretation independent.
    5. Positional names are unlimited in construction. So by combining unlimited construction and context independence we achieve scale independence.
    6. We perform mathematics in our minds even if we record it with tools. As such arithmetic operations are also time and cost independent.
    7. And given that it can be written, arithmetic is memory, and visualization independent.

    CLOSING
    So, while ordinary language that describes the existential world is vulnerable to context, ambiguity interpretation, scale, time, and cost variation, arithmetic REMOVES THOSE DIMENSIONS from the paradigm, with it’s simple paradigm, vocabulary, logic, and grammar. As such we have no choice but to follow simple rules of addition subtraction, multiplication and division in order to sense, perceive, and judge that which is otherwise beyond our perception, comprehension, memory, and reason.

    This is why arithmetic works.

    It’s an innovation in language and writing that extends our capacity beyond our native memory perception and reason.

    And when combined with the balance scale of double entry accounting lets us weigh and measure complex human cooperation at extraordinary scale and complexity over extraordinary time.

    Now, this is the basis of understanding all paradigms. What dimensions, terms, and agreements are necessary and which are prohibited in order to prevent human vulnerability to variations in context, ambiguity, interpretation, scale, time, and cost – and lying.

    The unification of the sciences whether formal (language and logic), physical, behavioral, or evolutionary, can be achieved through this same analysis and the disambiguation of terms such that they are universal across the sciences instead of unique to them, and the uniqueness necessary in the sciences is derived from and explain d by the universal definitions that are constructed from the first principles: evolutionary computation of the defeat of entropy by the discovery of persistency in the form of ever increasing organizations of complex mass.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-07 01:58:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1787663154593366016

  • (NLI Insight) MODIFYING GRAMMAR’S PARTS OF SPEECH TO EXPLICITLY ADDRESS AGREEMEN

    (NLI Insight)
    MODIFYING GRAMMAR’S PARTS OF SPEECH TO EXPLICITLY ADDRESS AGREEMENT/DISAGREEMENT – THE EQUIVALENT IN LOGIC TO ‘EQUALITY’.
    (Problem: consistency of construction between language, arithmetic, mathematics, and logic.)

    I work in the universal grammar, universal commensurability by unification of the sciences into a consistent framework of causality by first principles.

    The discipline of Grammar today is missing Agreements (yes/no, true/false, agree/disagree like/dislike, understand/don’t understand) or “Affirmation/Negation” because the end point of any grammatical statement is either success by conveying meaning inexplicitly, or explicitly conveying some other form of agreement or not and on what basis as stated above.

    Why does this matter? Because in operational language (the test of whether something is testifiable) we require the ability to reconstruct sentences into complete sentences consisting of sequences of operational terms describing the full set of changes in state.

    And further that we can demonstrate the consistency and correspondence between actions (operations), transformations (states), language, Programmatic language, Logic (sets), Arithmetic, Mathematics, and Bayesian inference networks.

    EXPLANATION
    Here’s a brief overview of how these concepts relate to the parts of speech:

    Affirmation and Negation: This includes words like “yes,” “no,” “true,” and “false,” which can function as adverbs or interjections depending on their usage. They explicitly confirm or deny a statement, question, or command.

    Spectrum:
    • |Agreement|: Understanding/Not > Agreement/Not > Good(General)/Not > Preference/Not

    Understanding(Neutral): Understanding (Neutral Spectrum):This involves the communication of comprehension or lack thereof. Expressed through verbs like “understand,” “comprehend,” or “grasp,” and often qualified with adverbs such as “fully” or “partially” to indicate the degree of understanding. Understanding is foundational; it establishes whether the information is received and decoded correctly.

    Agreement and Disagreement(I agree with something of some nature): Reflects concurrence or discord with a given statement or proposal. It’s typically conveyed with verbs such as “agree,” “concur,” and their negatives “disagree,” “dissent.” This spectrum relates to acceptance or rejection of the information or opinions presented.

    Good (I can see how that would be beneficial): Involves evaluating the implications or consequences of the information or proposal as being beneficial or detrimental. This can be expressed through adjectives like “good,” “beneficial,” “bad,” “harmful,” and often relates to the broader impact of the agreement or understanding on the individual, group, or a broader context:

    Preference (I would prefer that) : Indicates a personal or group favor towards options or outcomes, influenced by individual or collective desires, needs, or values. Expressed through verbs like “prefer,” “favor,” and nouns such as “preference,” “choice.” This spectrum is highly subjective and reflects individual or group biases, tastes, or values.

    Disregard (I don’t care): Signifies that the information or proposal is not considered valuable, relevant, or significant enough to merit attention or action. It can be expressed with verbs like “ignore,” “dismiss,” or “overlook.” This state is crucial as it represents a conscious or unconscious decision to deprioritize the information due to perceived irrelevance, lack of benefit, or low importance

    Each of these categories plays a distinct role in communication:
    • Understanding ensures that the message is decoded.
    • Agreement establishes a basis for collaboration or conflict.
    • Good/Bad assesses the practical or moral implications of the information or decisions.
    • Preference reveals personal or collective inclinations that might influence future interactions or decisions.
    • Disregard allows individuals or groups to conserve cognitive resources by filtering out information considered unworthy of attention, thereby simplifying decision-making processes.

    So just as names of static states (nouns) or dynamic states(verbs), these names of agreements(affirmation/negation) consist of dimensions of measurement.

    So where nouns and verbs tend toward seven dimensions of measurement, here in names of agreement Agreements we see five dimensions of measurement from neutral-non-committal to enthusiasm.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-07 01:07:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1787650449287401473

  • (English Language Humor) Proper folk pronounce Aunt as “AWE-nt”, and the little

    (English Language Humor)

    Proper folk pronounce Aunt as “AWE-nt”, and the little folk say “Ant”.
    Proper folk pronounce Route as “Root” and the little people say “Rahwt”
    Proper folks and little folk both pronounce “Router” – as in network router – as “rahwter”.

    Sigh. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-21 20:07:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782139004382507458

  • CURT: DO YOU KNOW CHRIS LANGAN? POTENTIAL FOR INTERSTING CONVERSATION? Yes, but

    CURT: DO YOU KNOW CHRIS LANGAN? POTENTIAL FOR INTERSTING CONVERSATION?

    Yes, but while I can understand Chris, I do not think he does or can understand my work – partly because it is so much work to undrestand – and partly because my criticism of his framing (because there is more than a grain of truth to what he intuits) is something I don’t think he could tolerate.

    My Understanding of Our Differences:

    Curt: I disambiguate all logics from narrative to formal cognition and seek unity between them with a paradigm, vocabulary, logic and methodology of universal commensurability. A constructive logic. This ends up with a very simple description of the natural and necessary evolutionary operation of the universe where humans are but an interesting outlier at the edge of the universe’s ability, by trial and error, to compute increasing complexity in defeat of entropy.

    Chris: Chris does the opposite of trying to conflate all the logics into a single homogenous system, to make a cohere and consistent system of thought across all logics. But this system attributes agency to the universe or to god rather than necessary natural processes.

    So we are both seeking coherence across logics (or what some call wisdom literatures) but from opposite directions.

    But the difference, in other words, exists because Chris and I have opposite agendas somewhat in solving the problem of unification of the wisdom literatures and disciplines into a consistent system of thought.

    I think you would find my work has a greater capacity to suppress error, bias, deceit, fraud, evasion, denial, manipulation, projection, accusation, sedition and treason. Because that was my intention: Law.

    And this difference is largely because I set out to stop lying and false promise in public to the public in matters public particularly by the government, media, and public intellectuals, as well as finance and commerce.

    And from what I can grasp I understand Chris is setting out to assist the individual in forming a universal frame of understanding of the universe without conflict between the various logics.

    Of course I am willing to be wrong here, but I think at a high level this is about correct.

    Both of these approaches have benefits. To some degree my work demonstrates what Chris is doing and why it’s of value.

    I am not confident he could make the same assessment of mine.

    Because our criteria for provision of decidability and right action differs.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @JimReckoning @RealChrisLangan

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-19 21:55:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1781441623152271360

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1781433966219931668

  • YOU’RE CHRISTIAN – IT’S JUST WHICH GRAMMAR YOU USE. A thing is defined not by wh

    YOU’RE CHRISTIAN – IT’S JUST WHICH GRAMMAR YOU USE.
    A thing is defined not by what it is but by what it is not. (Disambiguation). We merely state what it because it requires less knowledge an information.

    This is why I’m a bit exasperated by europeans who claim they are atheists and not christians following the christian ethic that we have developed in concert with our proto-european ethics and morals over the past two centuries.

    You are christian if you are not something else. Because there are no civilizations without some group strategy, some metaphysical value judgements, some means of persisting them, into traditions values norms and institutions.

    You could say that europeans developed natural law and that christianity made it accessible to the lower and underclasses, and as such there is little difference between christianity secular humanism, and the natural law of cooperation.

    Ergo:
    Intuition > Reason……. > Evidence
    Faith ….. > Philosophy > Law (Science)

    However, you must also understand that it took christianity to convert the via-negativa of the law, the via positiva of virtue, in to a via positiva of forgiveness which made it possible for the little people to possess and demonstrate virtue.

    Europeans are in fact the remains of european aryans, european greco-romans, and european christians, and the restoration of european greco-roman with the sciences.

    Via Brad
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-17 21:24:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780708866550059008

  • IT’S ALL WORD SALAD TO YOU? This is why my writing looks like word salad to you:

    IT’S ALL WORD SALAD TO YOU?
    This is why my writing looks like word salad to you:

    1) It’s much closer to mathematics and programmatic logic than it is to ordinary english. In fact it’s ‘a formal operational logic’ meaning a lot like programming.

    2) All technical fields prevent ambiguity and confusion by using terms specific to the context. (again, my work is much closer to programmatic logic) In effect instead of analogies, technical fields use terms as the equivalent of names or measurements.

    3) There is a presumption among ordinary people that ethical, moral, and legal language should be composed in ordinary language – despite that ordinary language is ambiguous, loaded, framed, and full of ignorance, error, bias and deceit.

    So, if instead, I wrote everything in algorithmic prose using legal document structure, then you would not assume that you would understand it.

    Can you read the law? Can you read software programs? Do you understand the foundations of mathematics? Of language and grammar? Of cognitive science? Of Economics? Of course you don’t. But do you criticize them for their ‘word salad’? Yet, I use concepts from all those fields and many others.

    But because enough people DO understand my work (our work at the institute since it’s more than just me), and because I don’t want to ‘scare people off’ by using math, formal logic, or formal operational logic (programming), I write as I do, and people either stick around to learn or they don’t.

    This strategy serves as a filtering system to keep away people who lack the capacity (and degrade the conversation) and encourages those that do (that improves the conversation).

    I’ve been a public intellectual for over a decade now, and the ‘word salad’ accusation is the equivalent of claiming calculus is false because it’s hard’. Yes my work is hard. It takes work to understand.

    So does every other scientific discipline. ‘)

    -Hugs

    Reply addressees: @PlayerJuan96

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-15 20:57:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779977315553890304

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779947987919356371