Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • EXISTS AS A LOGIC, NOT A SCIENCE. As far as I know, mathematics consists not of

    https://www.quora.com/If-mathematics-is-an-exact-science-why-are-there-assumptions/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=8eada093&srid=u4QvMATH EXISTS AS A LOGIC, NOT A SCIENCE.

    As far as I know, mathematics consists not of science but of a logic. A logic meaning a grammar of decidability. And in the case of mathematics, the grammar of decidability consists of reduction of all references to positional names, and therefore all relations to positional relations. And we can do so with an unlimited number of dimensions,

    A science is necessary when we do not know the first principles (causal relations) of phenomenon and seek to identify them. Science therefore consists of theories and laws.

    A logic is necessary when we do know the first principles (causal relations). Ergo, logics consist of axioms.

    You can declare an axiom, but only identify a law.

    Once a law is known you may model it with axioms.

    That I know of there are only two assumptions in mathematics, and both are necessary for the simple reason that independent of context (applied mathematics) we have no means of decidability in matters of scale independence.

    The law of the excluded middle.

    The need for choice.

    Mathematics is actually quite simple. Its that because it is so simple, consisting only of positional relations, we can describe any set of constant relations with it.Updated Dec 29, 2017, 8:21 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-29 20:21:00 UTC

  • Math Exists As A Logic, Not A Science.

    As far as I know, mathematics consists not of science but of a logic. A logic meaning a grammar of decidability. And in the case of mathematics, the grammar of decidability consists of reduction of all references to positional names, and therefore all relations to positional relations. And we can do so with an unlimited number of dimensions, A science is necessary when we do not know the first principles (causal relations) of phenomenon and seek to identify them. Science therefore consists of theories and laws. A logic is necessary when we do know the first principles (causal relations). Ergo, logics consist of axioms. You can declare an axiom, but only identify a law. Once a law is known you may model it with axioms. That I know of there are only two assumptions in mathematics, and both are necessary for the simple reason that independent of context (applied mathematics) we have no means of decidability in matters of scale independence. The law of the excluded middle. The need for choice. Mathematics is actually quite simple. Its that because it is so simple, consisting only of positional relations, we can describe any set of constant relations with it.

  • If Mathematics Is An Exact Science, Why Are There Assumptions?

    As far as I know, mathematics consists not of science but of a logic. A logic meaning a grammar of decidability. And in the case of mathematics, the grammar of decidability consists of reduction of all references to positional names, and therefore all relations to positional relations. And we can do so with an unlimited number of dimensions,

    A science is necessary when we do not know the first principles (causal relations) of phenomenon and seek to identify them. Science therefore consists of theories and laws.

    A logic is necessary when we do know the first principles (causal relations). Ergo, logics consist of axioms.

    You can declare an axiom, but only identify a law.

    Once a law is known you may model it with axioms.

    That I know of there are only two assumptions in mathematics, and both are necessary for the simple reason that independent of context (applied mathematics) we have no means of decidability in matters of scale independence.

    The law of the excluded middle.
    The need for choice.

    Mathematics is actually quite simple. Its that because it is so simple, consisting only of positional relations, we can describe any set of constant relations with it.

    https://www.quora.com/If-mathematics-is-an-exact-science-why-are-there-assumptions

  • If Mathematics Is An Exact Science, Why Are There Assumptions?

    As far as I know, mathematics consists not of science but of a logic. A logic meaning a grammar of decidability. And in the case of mathematics, the grammar of decidability consists of reduction of all references to positional names, and therefore all relations to positional relations. And we can do so with an unlimited number of dimensions,

    A science is necessary when we do not know the first principles (causal relations) of phenomenon and seek to identify them. Science therefore consists of theories and laws.

    A logic is necessary when we do know the first principles (causal relations). Ergo, logics consist of axioms.

    You can declare an axiom, but only identify a law.

    Once a law is known you may model it with axioms.

    That I know of there are only two assumptions in mathematics, and both are necessary for the simple reason that independent of context (applied mathematics) we have no means of decidability in matters of scale independence.

    The law of the excluded middle.
    The need for choice.

    Mathematics is actually quite simple. Its that because it is so simple, consisting only of positional relations, we can describe any set of constant relations with it.

    https://www.quora.com/If-mathematics-is-an-exact-science-why-are-there-assumptions

  • If An Advanced Alien Civilization Uses An Axiomatic System That Allows Them To Solve Many Math Problems That We Have Tried For Centuries To Solve, Would We Adapt To Their System So That Our Math Knowledge Can Catch Up To Theirs?

    Um. I don’t think you understand the constitution of mathematics. And I am not sure that I want to invest that level of effort. But given the simplicity of math, and the impossibility of anything more ‘simple’ than math, the only thing we can do with mathematics that we cannot do now, is increase the dimension of constant relations that we calculate. And even today, that is largely a function of computational power. I mean, once you get to Lie groups you really have completed the circle, very similarly to how once you get to chemistry you have completed the subatomic cycle, and started over.

    https://www.quora.com/If-an-advanced-alien-civilization-uses-an-axiomatic-system-that-allows-them-to-solve-many-math-problems-that-we-have-tried-for-centuries-to-solve-would-we-adapt-to-their-system-so-that-our-math-knowledge-can-catch-up-to-theirs

  • David (all) It is quite possible to reduce human categories, relations and value

    David (all)

    It is quite possible to reduce human categories, relations and values to a correspondent, consistent, coherent, and commensurable set of references.

    And as far as I know we can also simulate the same changes in state within the machine that we experience via our reward systems (emotions).

    Now, just as some people can’t imitate your actions, sympathize with your thinking, and empathize with your feelings, because the differences in frames are too hard to overcome, I suspect that machines will ‘get it wrong’ with some of us now and then.

    Some people want to work with the neural network architecture. And NN’s are exceptional at reducing inputs to symbols (objects, relations, values). And in my opinion the NN ceases being useful(cost effective and controllable) at the point at which we develop symbols (objects, relations, values).

    Beyond the construction of symbols, the game engine (algorithmic) architecture appears to be a better solution.

    We can create transparency, auditability, and yes, conscience, as long as we use such an architecture. For example, imagine that you could only act upon what you could vocalize?

    I’ll also stay on message that the fundamental problem any intelligence faces is taking action to conduct tests. Ergo the primary problem with ‘superintelligence’ or even ‘general intelligence’ as I understand it, (and I have been at this a long time), are the same as the primary problem with knowledge creation in any other field: cost, logistics, and permission to organize a network of actions.

    There don’t seem to be many other people in AI that have both an understanding of computer science, an understanding of economics, and the economics of the increasingly complex problem of experimentation whether personal, political, entrepreneurial, technical, or

    It is, believe it or not, within one lifetime, possible for a human being of adequate ability and time to comprehend the limits of each and every major discipline. And it is equally possible to ‘keep up’ with the current status of those disciplines.

    As far as I know computers will not mine much that is good out of the existing base of knowldge.

    The primary difference is that machies will be able to think and act faster than us in work capacities.

    In creativity? Creativity isn’t a process of reasoning but free association, and experimentation.

    The problem in every field today is that where it took one person to solve a scientific problem a century ago, it takes armies of them today.

    The problem is cost.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-08 16:35:00 UTC

  • David (all) It is quite possible to reduce human categories, relations and value

    David (all) It is quite possible to reduce human categories, relations and values to a correspondent, consistent, coherent, and commensurable set of references. And as far as I know we can also simulate the same changes in state within the machine that we experience via our reward systems (emotions). Now, just as some people can’t imitate your actions, sympathize with your thinking, and empathize with your feelings, because the differences in frames are too hard to overcome, I suspect that machines will ‘get it wrong’ with some of us now and then. Some people want to work with the neural network architecture. And NN’s are exceptional at reducing inputs to symbols (objects, relations, values). And in my opinion the NN ceases being useful(cost effective and controllable) at the point at which we develop symbols (objects, relations, values). Beyond the construction of symbols, the game engine (algorithmic) architecture appears to be a better solution. We can create transparency, auditability, and yes, conscience, as long as we use such an architecture. For example, imagine that you could only act upon what you could vocalize? I’ll also stay on message that the fundamental problem any intelligence faces is taking action to conduct tests. Ergo the primary problem with ‘superintelligence’ or even ‘general intelligence’ as I understand it, (and I have been at this a long time), are the same as the primary problem with knowledge creation in any other field: cost, logistics, and permission to organize a network of actions. There don’t seem to be many other people in AI that have both an understanding of computer science, an understanding of economics, and the economics of the increasingly complex problem of experimentation whether personal, political, entrepreneurial, technical, or It is, believe it or not, within one lifetime, possible for a human being of adequate ability and time to comprehend the limits of each and every major discipline. And it is equally possible to ‘keep up’ with the current status of those disciplines. As far as I know computers will not mine much that is good out of the existing base of knowldge. The primary difference is that machies will be able to think and act faster than us in work capacities. In creativity? Creativity isn’t a process of reasoning but free association, and experimentation. The problem in every field today is that where it took one person to solve a scientific problem a century ago, it takes armies of them today. The problem is cost.

  • David (all) It is quite possible to reduce human categories, relations and value

    David (all) It is quite possible to reduce human categories, relations and values to a correspondent, consistent, coherent, and commensurable set of references. And as far as I know we can also simulate the same changes in state within the machine that we experience via our reward systems (emotions). Now, just as some people can’t imitate your actions, sympathize with your thinking, and empathize with your feelings, because the differences in frames are too hard to overcome, I suspect that machines will ‘get it wrong’ with some of us now and then. Some people want to work with the neural network architecture. And NN’s are exceptional at reducing inputs to symbols (objects, relations, values). And in my opinion the NN ceases being useful(cost effective and controllable) at the point at which we develop symbols (objects, relations, values). Beyond the construction of symbols, the game engine (algorithmic) architecture appears to be a better solution. We can create transparency, auditability, and yes, conscience, as long as we use such an architecture. For example, imagine that you could only act upon what you could vocalize? I’ll also stay on message that the fundamental problem any intelligence faces is taking action to conduct tests. Ergo the primary problem with ‘superintelligence’ or even ‘general intelligence’ as I understand it, (and I have been at this a long time), are the same as the primary problem with knowledge creation in any other field: cost, logistics, and permission to organize a network of actions. There don’t seem to be many other people in AI that have both an understanding of computer science, an understanding of economics, and the economics of the increasingly complex problem of experimentation whether personal, political, entrepreneurial, technical, or It is, believe it or not, within one lifetime, possible for a human being of adequate ability and time to comprehend the limits of each and every major discipline. And it is equally possible to ‘keep up’ with the current status of those disciplines. As far as I know computers will not mine much that is good out of the existing base of knowldge. The primary difference is that machies will be able to think and act faster than us in work capacities. In creativity? Creativity isn’t a process of reasoning but free association, and experimentation. The problem in every field today is that where it took one person to solve a scientific problem a century ago, it takes armies of them today. The problem is cost.

  • The Function Of Philosophizing

    The function of philosophizing is the continuous improvement in decidability, choice and preference through the continuous reorganization of narratives, paradigms, theories, categories, relations and values, in response to continuous introduction of new knowledge , ideas, and experience, by the fairly simple process of permuting through sets of constant relations, in the fairly complex, high causal density we call reality.

  • Framing, from false dichotomies through the addition of subsequent dimensions, t

    Framing, from false dichotomies through the addition of subsequent dimensions, to entire narratives dependent upon them, serve as a means of deception by suggestion. We use the term paradigm for networks of theories.We use the suite of scientific paradigms to provide commensurability between unscientific paradigms. For the simple reason that the scientific (deflationary) paradigms consist of constant relations independent of ignorance, error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit. For the simple reason that the function of scientific investigation is the elimination of ignorance error bias wishful thinking and deceit from our speech by isolation and measurement of constant relations.