Konstantin:
A bit of wisdom on ‘merit’.
A common problem with most languages that is easily overcome in English is the use of complete sentences. In this case merit remains ambiguous – a normative term.
Merit has a single, universal, cause:
“Demonstrated capacity for bearing the…
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-29 22:46:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674549940779876355
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674488134237560849
“THE CULT OF THE DIALECTIC”
While a good content producer, and in this case he’s right, but I think he didn’t quite hit the mark on this one – because he doesn’t know about the grammars of deceit. Otherwise I’ll recommend the video 😉
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb_tJ59bSzg
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-29 18:37:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674487388129873921
Now, why you’re confused (as is common) about the meaning of ‘law’ as in laws of the universe.
This is a long standing problem in western thought even though western thought is far superior to the thought in every other civilization – we still have a few issues.
So let’s understand what’s possible to describe by what system of description (measurement).
|Sequence|: Sets(Identification, Logic) > Math(Descriptions), Computation(Operations) > Simulation (Adversarial Competition)
1. Set Reducibility (Language, Logic)
2. Mathematical Reducibility (Physics)
3. Computational Reducibility (Behavior)
4. Simulational Reducibility (Evolution)
How does prediction change in that sequence?
Why do we need each increase in precision?
What dimensions are we adding with each increase in precision?
See? 😉
Reply addressees: @justinmchase
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-27 16:53:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673736283775025169
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673734153542549512
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
Yes, because when we refer to “The Method”, we’re referring to producing sequences of terms as measurements by the process of ‘disambiguation by enumeration, operationalization, aversarial competition, and serialization’, thereby creating a discreet definition of a term.
Science consists of the means of producing testifiable testimony by production of falsifiable operations. Scientific statesments contain two properties: the formula (description) and search criteria (context).
There are four sciences: the physical (before state), behavioral (during state), evolutionary (after state), and the formal science (the logics) we describe those states with.
All four sciences are constructable from the one first principle (first law) of the ternary logic of evolutionary computation by the defeat of entropy by the concentration of energy consisting of positive, negative charges in stable persistent organizations.
All language consitsts of measurements of levels of ambiguous to unambiguous precision, using the same rule of evolutionary computation by continous recursive disambiguation of ambiguity into meaning: agreement (or not): “stable relations”
Ergo language is just an extension of the same rules that all the rest of the universe operates by – because thats how our neurons operate, because that’s how molecules operate – etc.
The “grammars”, from unambiuous (math) to ambiguous(deception) consists of paradigms (permissible dimensions), vocabulary, and syntax for communication by some measurment wiether precise, imprecise, or associative, or misleading.
Natural Law = The science, and logic of cooperation (non conflict) by the production of a universally commensurable value neutral paradigm, vocabulary, and logic of decidability.
We use the term natural law because it completes the aristotelian project of the same name. And is the foundation behind the common, concurrent law of europeans and british and american constitutions in particular.
We have merely ‘scienced’ that law, and plugged holes in that constitution by doing so.
This completes the wilsonian synthesis of the unification of the sciences.
So our work is quite important – on the scale of the Darwinian Revlution.
And social media was one of the most useful research tools because we can ‘experiement’ with language and behavior cheaply and quickly by the collection of demonstrated (good) rather than reported (bad) behavior.
Cheers
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1673734153542549512
Yes, because when we refer to “The Method”, we’re referring to producing sequences of terms as measurements by the process of ‘disambiguation by enumeration, operationalization, aversarial competition, and serialization’, thereby creating a discreet definition of a term.
Science consists of the means of producing testifiable testimony by production of falsifiable operations. Scientific statesments contain two properties: the formula (description) and search criteria (context).
There are four sciences: the physical (before state), behavioral (during state), evolutionary (after state), and the formal science (the logics) we describe those states with.
All four sciences are constructable from the one first principle (first law) of the ternary logic of evolutionary computation by the defeat of entropy by the concentration of energy consisting of positive, negative charges in stable persistent organizations.
All language consitsts of measurements of levels of ambiguous to unambiguous precision, using the same rule of evolutionary computation by continous recursive disambiguation of ambiguity into meaning: agreement (or not): “stable relations”
Ergo language is just an extension of the same rules that all the rest of the universe operates by – because thats how our neurons operate, because that’s how molecules operate – etc.
The “grammars”, from unambiuous (math) to ambiguous(deception) consists of paradigms (permissible dimensions), vocabulary, and syntax for communication by some measurment wiether precise, imprecise, or associative, or misleading.
Natural Law = The science, and logic of cooperation (non conflict) by the production of a universally commensurable value neutral paradigm, vocabulary, and logic of decidability.
We use the term natural law because it completes the aristotelian project of the same name. And is the foundation behind the common, concurrent law of europeans and british and american constitutions in particular.
We have merely ‘scienced’ that law, and plugged holes in that constitution by doing so.
This completes the wilsonian synthesis of the unification of the sciences.
So our work is quite important – on the scale of the Darwinian Revlution.
And social media was one of the most useful research tools because we can ‘experiement’ with language and behavior cheaply and quickly by the collection of demonstrated (good) rather than reported (bad) behavior.
Cheers
Reply addressees: @justinmchase
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-27 16:44:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673734153328631808
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673720451317612544
It’s understandable. All technical disciplines require terms with domain specific meaning. But in sending you to the source material, you would easily get lost because it’s overwhelming. So instead, pick a term or statement you don’t understand, and I’ll clarify for you and…
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-27 13:06:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673679132322832385
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673673418028335104
(NLI Team)
Yet another GPT4 test.
Generally, it’s spot on.
But it doesn’t appear to account for my explanation of why terms are of narrower definition than convention, even when I explain it.
—-
GPT4 Response:
This passage appears to be a philosophical and scientific exploration of the principles of evolution, complexity, and computation. It’s quite dense and uses a lot of specialized terminology, but here’s a general interpretation:
Cooperation and Evolutionary Computation: The author suggests that cooperation between different entities (possibly referring to biological organisms, but potentially also to other types of entities) can lead to a process of “evolutionary computation”. This process involves the discovery of equilibriums or balances between different forces or factors, which the author describes as “feminine” (demand, unlimited) and “masculine” (supply, limited).
Hierarchy of Adaptive Complexity: The author proposes that this process of evolutionary computation can lead to the creation of increasingly complex structures, from atoms and molecules to cells, organisms, and ecosystems. This hierarchy of complexity is driven by the discovery of stable relations between different entities, which can be recombined in new ways to create more complex structures.
Quanta of Marginal Difference: The author suggests that each level in this hierarchy is determined by a certain “quantum” or unit of difference, which is necessary for stable relations to persist over time. This increase in the scope of computational possibility is what determines each scale.
Ternary Logic of Evolutionary Computation: The author introduces the concept of a “ternary logic” of evolutionary computation, which involves a balance or equilibrium between consumption of energy (-), stable relations of energy (=), and production of energy (+), or the collapse of energy (!=). This logic is proposed as a universal means of explaining all phenomena in the universe.
Universal Decidability and Grammar: The author suggests that this ternary logic provides a universal test of decidability for any claims about the physical, behavioral, or evolutionary world. It also provides a universal grammar for constructing narratives or stories about the world.
This passage seems to be an attempt to integrate concepts from various fields, including biology, physics, computer science, and philosophy, to create a comprehensive model of evolution, complexity, and computation. Some of the terms and ideas presented are complex and may not align with mainstream scientific understanding. The author also seems to use some terms in non-standard ways, which can make the passage difficult to understand.
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-25 18:57:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673042842074116101
(NLI Team)
(Seems to be another good use of ChatGPT: Ensuring that the work is comprehensible.)
ChatGPT4 Response:
This passage appears to be an attempt to describe the nature of the universe and the principles of causality from a philosophical and scientific perspective. It seems to draw on concepts from physics, cosmology, and information theory, among other fields. Here’s a general breakdown of the main ideas:
1. Discrete Existence: The author asserts that the universe and everything in it exists in a discrete (separate and distinct) manner, rather than in a continuous manner. This is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics, where things like energy levels are quantized, or broken up into discrete units.
2. Differentiation: The author suggests that the universe is under some kind of pressure, which leads to the creation of differences or variations. These differences can be discrete or continuous, and they can be described using computational or mathematical language.
3. Energy and Matter: The author discusses the conservation of energy and suggests that the universe resolves differences in pressure through the creation of matter (increases in energy density) or space (increases in volume). This seems to be a reference to cosmological theories about the expansion of the universe and the creation of matter.
4. Polarity and Stability: The author talks about the concept of polarity, or opposing forces, and suggests that stable relations can be formed through equilibrium between these forces. Unstable relations, on the other hand, will decay or collapse.
5. Accumulation: The author suggests that the universe is characterized by a process of accumulation, where increases in energy density lead to new combinations and recombinations of matter. This process is described as a hierarchy of persistent recombinations.
The passage is quite complex and seems to be an attempt to describe the universe in a holistic way, drawing on concepts from various scientific fields.
Some of the ideas presented are speculative and may not align with mainstream scientific understanding. The author also seems to use some terms in non-standard ways, which can make the passage difficult to understand.
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-25 17:39:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673023050059505664
WHY UNDERSTANDING THE SEQUENCE OF SETS, MATH, AND OPERATIONS MATTERS TO YOU.
–“I started reading “Math and Computation” which isn’t on the NLI list, but often recommended by Curt. I have no CS background, so a lot is over my head. But I’m picking up about 80% of it. It’s pretty fun, even as an amateur. I guess the relevance to NLI is that there exist problems that are very difficult to solve even with a computer. But markets are like computers that can solve very complex problems.”– Daniel
Correct. Discretely computable atomic operations produce greater explanatory opportunity than continuous mathematical reductions So it’s more that unlike mathematics (continuous) and like computation (discreetness) markets identify reciprocal voluntary exchanges making use of the pricing system (time value of scarcity), by the discovery of mutual gains of time and as such continue the laws of nature (evolutionary computation of persistence, opportunity, innovation, adaptation) demonstrating the continuity between all physical, behavioral, evolutionary, and logical processes.
–“I finally finished Math and Computation. The last chapter (Epilogue) is where he ties it all together in plain English. I recommend the whole thing, but especially the last chapter.”–
–“”One of the broadest ways to informally define computation — indeed, the view that underpins the celebrated Church-Turing thesis (which is discussed more later), is as follows:
Computation is the evolution process of some environment, by a sequence of “simple, local” steps.”–
–“Here is a partial list of environments with such interacting parts, which in all cases can shed their physical characteristics and be viewed as transformations of pure information:
• Bits in a computer.
• Computers in a network.
• Atoms in matter.
• Neurons in the brain.
• Proteins in a cell.
• Cells in a tissue.
• Bacteria in a Petri dish.
• Deductions in proof systems.
• Prices in a market.
• Individuals in a population.
• Stars in galaxies.
• Friends on Facebook.
• Qubits in entangled states.”—
–“I got the spiritual epiphany by the end with the realization that all this computing stuff is just God and God’s laws and God’s own curiosity to understand Gods laws. God’s nature is algorithmic. So, spiritually it was ultimately a rewarding experience.”–
Clearly, Daniel Understands. 😉
Now, how do I say the same thing without ‘God’ for those of us who simply see ‘The Laws of the Universe”?
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-23 18:03:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1672304388738523143
It’s ok. It’s an algorithmic grammar. You wouldn’t understand and don’t need to.
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-22 00:41:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671679768842969090
Reply addressees: @BeecherDenys @somanybadtweets @deesemonster @ModelYManiac @snopes @Starlink
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671679054825545728
Autism as you refer to it is just the extreme male adult systematizing brain laundering all speech of loading, framing, obscuring, wishful and magical thinking, and the fictionalisms such that it sounds uncaringly legalistic, empirical, and scientific (and it is) rather than philosophical and theological which don’t launder themselves of loading, framing, and obscuring. But it is those emotions loadings and framings that are signals of alliance for your subconscoius. And I’m eradicating the ability to use that alliance signal and emotions to decieve you. As such you understand the truth and absence of deceit (or not)and understand what’s necessary for victory (or not). Measurments aren’t emotionally rewarding – they’re just true. 😉
Reply addressees: @UBathys
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-21 17:12:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671566798376796174
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671562649635819520