Theme: Grammar

  • I doubt very seriously I’m confusing or conflating anything. On the other hand y

    I doubt very seriously I’m confusing or conflating anything. On the other hand you might interpret what I’m saying as ambiguous and not grasp my meaning.

    All language consists of measurements. A number has no unambiguous meaning without a context, and few if any terms have unambiguous meaning without context. So context equals correspondence.

    In other words if a word is ambiguous in meaning then it’s context is insufficient to provide ambiuity.

    This is the reason we demand operational language in testifiable truth – because if you cannot state what you mean in operational terms you cannot reduce it to unambiguous identity.

    The purpose of grammar is to continuously recursively disambiguate disorder into order, or more correctly ambiguity into identity.

    The function of all existence relies on the same process of continuous recursive disambiguation of entropy into negative entropy that captures time energy and information in its organization and produces additional new opportunities for capture of more energy and more persistence (time) that can be put to new use (capital).

    So the entire universe works by the same simple principle at all scales and the simplicity of that principle emerges in in all contexts at all scales because it must for reasons too complex to explain here.

    So, it’s not the words that have meaning so much as the words phrases sentences narratives reduced to operational prose that produce unambiguity.

    As for reasoning it consists of the primitives the brain is capable of doing which is just wayfinding between episodes where episode consists of a memory and it’s associations in the most general terms.

    Reply addressees: @BrownCanard @compliantcitiz1


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-29 02:43:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751798203131871232

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751795444752269478

  • I don’t want to run down a rat hole but we have mathematical proof generators fo

    I don’t want to run down a rat hole but we have mathematical proof generators for a reason – because there are a limited number of rules and the foundation of all of those rules is quite simple. The same is true for proteins, chemistry, and subatomic and atomic physics. Essentially it’s a game of combinatorial trial and error. But the options in math and physics are quite limited compared to the options in teh real world at scale that involve coordinting resources and people with time and money.
    So I’ll disagree with you pretty easily. The most common example is the limitation of mathematics in economics at any scale, and the limitation of mathematics at any small scale. We run into these limits all the time.

    Reply addressees: @BrownCanard


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-29 02:35:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751796243188097024

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751795024512315814

  • HOW AIs AREN’T LIKE YOU You know how you can meet someone from a very different

    HOW AIs AREN’T LIKE YOU
    You know how you can meet someone from a very different social class and discover how hard it is to meaningfully communicate? How about someone from a different country within the same civilization? Or someone from a very different civilization at a very different stage of development? Or someone that has a much higher or lower IQ from one of the above.

    Language is a protocol for crossing the differences between brains. But the differences exist. So the fact that someone can talk to you does not mean they are anything like you internally.

    Same thing goes for AIs but it’s much, much worse:

    You have a thing called a brainstem that’s effectively never suhutting off, and is trying to maintain your body’s homeostasis. Your brain serves that brain stem in doing so. Your neocortex just improves it … a lot. Your consciousness is a tool it uses to deal with increasing complexity in a social context.

    these ai’s are sort of a neocortex without the rest of the brain and totally absent a brain stem. they aren’t ‘doing anything’ when answering your questions AT ALL.

    We should get our first meaningful neuromorphic computer this spring if the Aussies can manage not to screw it up, and if it works, then within some number of years, we won’t have to ‘pre-train’ but the AI’s can constantly evolve, and can maintain some sort of consciousness of some subset of what they’re doing across time.

    When we get close to that, and the energy demand required doesn’t produce enough heat to turn the surface of the earth to cinders, then we can start worrying. πŸ˜‰

    Until then the danger is from people using these unconscious machines for nefarious purposes, not from them using us.

    For some reason the average nitwit seems to think that these things can be all knowing. The problem with knowledge expansion is running experiments. They cost money. Lots of it. So somethings they an solve for us, like proteins and chemical combinations and molecule construction because those are well understood problems of puzzle pieces. That’s not true for stuff we DON”T understand.

    Reply addressees: @SentientAtom100


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-29 02:32:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751795336232722432

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751792079028777040

  • GPT INTERESTING: TRYING TO EXPLAIN P-LAW IN ACADEMIC VS MATHEMATICAL PROSE So, a

    GPT INTERESTING: TRYING TO EXPLAIN P-LAW IN ACADEMIC VS MATHEMATICAL PROSE So, a

    GPT INTERESTING: TRYING TO EXPLAIN P-LAW IN ACADEMIC VS MATHEMATICAL PROSE
    So, after this experiment, I’m still convinced my prose is superior to the alternatives. πŸ˜‰ But I’m still willing to be wrong. πŸ˜‰

    1. Asking GPT to ‘normalize’ my analytic prose into more accessible… https://t.co/OfQtKq45Eb


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-28 20:46:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751708355708547349

  • Yes. πŸ˜‰ I’m not kidding when I say that solving the hard problem of truth wasn’t

    Yes. πŸ˜‰

    I’m not kidding when I say that solving the hard problem of truth wasn’t anywhere near as hard as solving the problem of talking about it so that at least some people could understand it.

    At present I’m trying to do the same thing with why only three spatial dimensions…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-26 21:11:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1750989808686571535

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1750983007895158962

  • Hmmm… how do we know the liars paradox is always false using a syllogism? Whil

    Hmmm… how do we know the liars paradox is always false using a syllogism? While operational prose it’s quite simple.

    Do you know why? The reducibility of linguistic sets is smaller than the reducibility of mathematical calculations is smaller than the reducibility of…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-26 20:32:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1750979993058828380

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1750976897700220947

  • THE PROBLEM OF COMMUNICATING IDEAS Idiomatic speech suggests .. Poetic speech co

    THE PROBLEM OF COMMUNICATING IDEAS

    Idiomatic speech suggests
    .. Poetic speech communicates.
    .. .. Syllogistic speech informs.
    .. .. .. Analytic speech demonstrates.
    .. .. .. .. Operational speech proves.

    The problem is, with each increase in precision comes an increase in exposition, and an increase in demand for attention, and an increase in cognitive burden, and rapid fall off of participation. πŸ˜‰

    Use what works:
    1. Answer the follow up question is they’re respectful and worthy.
    2. Disrespect and dismiss the follow up accusations and demands.
    3. Ignore the rest as a waste of time.

    The degree to which logical competency diminishes below 125, falls below 115, collapses below 105, evaporates below 95 is multiplied by ignorance arrogance and dunning kruger overconfidence. So you know, at some point you’re wasting your time. But we keep hope alive. πŸ˜‰

    Stupid people don’t usually know it.

    Reply addressees: @MindEnjoyer


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-26 20:29:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1750979311794876416

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1750975628197974064

  • Typos” 109 explosions => 109 expulsions optimistic as hour hight trust => as our

    Typos”
    109 explosions => 109 expulsions
    optimistic as hour hight trust => as our high trust
    industrialize liying sedition => industrialize lying sedition


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-26 18:43:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1750952704724070804

    Reply addressees: @AndrewJV123 @auny_marie

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1750948669489094969


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    ANTI-ISRAEL? WHY NOT PRO ISRAEL?
    Hmmm… Support them there so they go there? If you don’t support them there, more will come to you? While there are only 6-7M Jews in israel, there are about the same number 6.3M in the USA. And smaller numbers in France (440,000), Canada (398,000), the United Kingdom (312,000), Argentina (171,000), Russia (132,000), Germany (125,000), and Australia (117,200). So under 2M outside of Israel and the USA. They are only safe in the anglosphere and broader germanosphere at present it seems.

    Conversely, israel, with a population of an additional eight millon, jews, totalling under 15M, would approximate the population of the Netherlands, and it’s per capita GDP of 50k, and total economy of 1T. This would have (and have to have) an extraordinarily positive strategic, economic, educational, and eventually cultural impact on the middle east, assisting them in their slow ascent out of supernatural m aysticism ignorance, mandated non-education, and economic subsistence without the oil revenues.

    WHAT ABOUT THE NEGATIVE EFFECT OF JEWS IN THE WEST?
    Of course we could just make a few adjustments in our laws to prevent baiting into hazard, privatizing gains and socializing losses.

    And we could outlaw sedition using the female to feminine to abrahamic-to-marxist sequence – so that we we equally suppressed feminine jewish abrahamic marxist antisocial behavior. Because feminine behavior is genetic, instinctual, and all but unsuppressable, especially their antisocial behavior.

    And we could return all credit expansion to the treasury and end the coercive and rent seeking power of the private financial sector, and vastly increase the treasury without increased taxation – perhaps even replacing taxation.

    And of course (my) our organization has prepared all that constitutional law as permanent amendments. So it’s easily done.

    And then it wouldn’t matter that jewish group evolutionary strategy, jewish instinct, and jewish culture was just the expression of female sedition against males by means of seduction into baiting into hazard and subsequent rent seeking, instead of earnings from production and reciprocal exchange free of negative externalities. πŸ˜‰

    But then as usual I’m probably talking over heads…. Hopefully someone catches on, a little at a time. πŸ˜‰

    We dont need to keep adding to the list of 109 explosions and we don’t need any more violence. We only need to domesticate women and jews, just as we have domesticated other groups in europe, on group, one class at a time. It’s just that women and jews together during teh 20th were a bit much when we were christian conservatives and foolishly optimistic as hour hight trust society and culture teach us… despite that it’s also a vulnerability as well as a benefit.z

    Codify the feminie-jewish-abrahamic- marxist sequence as what it is: crime. And institutionalize it in our legal code. And purge that behavior from our polities forever, just as we have incrementally purged all other antisocial behavior.

    Because male antisocial behavior is more obvious and urgent we acted on it first. But now that we can industrialize liying sedition and rent seeking and parasitism through indirect institutional means we must also suppress the feminine as thoroughly as we have suppressed the masculine.

    From my standpoint I see women and jews as an asset just as I see other europeans as an asset or all higher performing people as an asset. The difference is we did not force jewish integration and they instead undermined our demand for integration and the consequence has been horrific. That said, ‘fixing’ the problem of the feminine isn’t that difficult as I’ve roughly outlined above. So why not preserve the asset even if there is a short term cost to it. And even if we should have made this legal change already regarding women independent of the jewish baiting of women into their strategy of sedition.

    Of course it takes political power to do so and that might men we cannot do so democratically, but must do so responsibly by ‘other means”.

    With humor and affection
    By painful truth regardless
    For the betterment of all

    C Doolittle

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1750948669489094969

  • Typos” 109 explosions => 109 expulsions optimistic as hour hight trust => as our

    Typos”
    109 explosions => 109 expulsions
    optimistic as hour hight trust => as our high trust
    industrialize liying sedition => industrialize lying sedition


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-26 18:43:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1750952704661229568

  • Q: CURT: “Hey I’m not familiar with the term p-law. … Would you orient me?”–

    –Q: CURT: “Hey I’m not familiar with the term p-law. … Would you orient me?”–

    Great Question.

    We disambiguate our ‘formal operational logic’ from the past by use of the terms: P-Method, P-Logic, P-Grammar, P-Science, P-Law. (As a nod to P-not-P or P-complete in computer science.)
    P-? : {P-Method, P-Logic, P-Grammar, P-Science, P-Law}

    We call the sum total of it ‘The Work’ … because we don’t know what else to call it. πŸ˜‰
    The Work {History, Logic, Science, Law, Reforms, Prosecutions, Religion}

    And we call the resulting application of The Work applied to The Science (unification of the sciences) and The Constitution, the Natural Law (unification of science, morality, law and government) Or more specifically, the formal operational logic of the science of Natural Law. Which is too much of a mouthful as well as too much to type.

    The working title of the book is simply “The Law”. Which is a subtle suggestion that it’s the final word so to speak, and certain religions that claim otherwise are simply frauds. – and evil for that matter? πŸ˜‰

    |TERMS| P-Method > The Work {History, Logic, Science, Law, Reforms, Prosecutions, Religion} > The Natural Law {Science and Constitution}

    MORE HERE:
    https://t.co/AhRHFxccU3


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-24 23:32:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1750300566251507712