Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • (Mostly. But not completely. Problem: what if the unambiguous prose itself is th

    (Mostly. But not completely. Problem: what if the unambiguous prose itself is the profound idea itself? Math, Formal Logic, Programming, the formal operational logic of law. 🙁 )
    While I want to agree, that complexity can be explained incrementally in conventional language – sufficiently to ‘get the gist’, it’s simply not true that the grammar of some ideas is reducible to ordinary language enough to understand and use.)

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-02 22:28:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1642655303119372293

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1642507295736188929

  • (Mostly. But not completely. Problem: what if the unambiguous prose itself is th

    (Mostly. But not completely. Problem: what if the unambiguous prose itself is the profound idea itself? Math, Formal Logic, Programming, the formal operational logic of law. 🙁 )
    While I want to agree, that complexity can be explained incrementally in conventional language – sufficiently to ‘get the gist’, it’s simply not true that the grammar of some ideas is reducible to ordinary language enough to understand and use.)

    Reply addressees: @EPoe187

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-02 22:28:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1642655303043801088

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1642507295736188929

  • Yes. The problem with ordinary langauge is pervasive ambiguity (and often falseh

    Yes. The problem with ordinary langauge is pervasive ambiguity (and often falsehood).

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-31 16:41:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1641843216369565696

    Reply addressees: @MathPolice @DreadBobby1

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1641839930379997184

  • Your problem is using a label. Always use operational prose when anything comple

    Your problem is using a label. Always use operational prose when anything complex is necessary. I intentionally use langauge that keeps the nitwits away. But if you are trying to make a point, and reach a lot of people, you can’t use ‘stakeholder capitalism’ because anyone sophisticated enough to understand it thinks its obvious and boring (and secondary to woke) and anyone who needs to underestand will ignore you. Talk cause and effecdt. If you need longer form to do it,t hen pay the eight bucks for blue checkmarks and write longer form.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 07:31:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640255294788845569

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640246417594912768

  • Your problem is using a label. Always use operational prose when anything comple

    Your problem is using a label. Always use operational prose when anything complex is necessary. I intentionally use langauge that keeps the nitwits away. But if you are trying to make a point, and reach a lot of people, you can’t use ‘stakeholder capitalism’ because anyone sophisticated enough to understand it thinks its obvious and boring (and secondary to woke) and anyone who needs to underestand will ignore you. Talk cause and effecdt. If you need longer form to do it,t hen pay the eight bucks for blue checkmarks and write longer form.

    Reply addressees: @Z3r0An0n

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 07:31:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640255294709149696

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640246417594912768

  • RT @curtdoolittle: @whatifalthist (Advanced topic warning) a) a dimension refers

    RT @curtdoolittle: @whatifalthist (Advanced topic warning)
    a) a dimension refers to a measurement necessary to disambiguate a reference. O…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-24 23:46:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1639413514296082432

  • (Advanced topic warning) a) a dimension refers to a measurement necessary to dis

    (Advanced topic warning)
    a) a dimension refers to a measurement necessary to disambiguate a reference. Or more specifically, in mathematics, to produce a set of vectors that produce a direction of causality that will influence other dimensions of causality. Ergo why we use Manifolds in mathematics to track dense causalities (relations). Our neurons are for all intents and purpose producing vast networks of cause in the manifold that is our neocortex.
    b) The universe only requires three spatial and one time dimensions to describe it. We can use either three linear or two circular(direction) and one linear (scale) dimensions as descriptors.
    c) (Very advanced topic) The universe is incapable of more than those three plus one dimensions – no more dimensions are possible without destroying the prior four.
    d) When we talk of say ten dimensions we are talking about a three step hierarchy of dimensions of causality, each that affects the others within the one time dimensions. In physics this means it is likely that there is at least one more dimension of causality (one more hierarchy of constant states) beneath the quantum background.
    e) Until we end our wasted einsteinian century ‘lost in mathiness’ (pseudoscience), by completing the classical model of the quantum background (we’re close), explaining what we call particles but aren’t (they’re closer to lightning storms that collapse as lightning bolts), and explain the cause of the quantum background we will not know if the speed of light and the mass that results as we compress the quantum background, can be overcome. I have, no one has, any sense as yet whether it’s possible. If not, and, if we cannot capture and use the energy of the quantum background (huge) even if only zero point, then we are ‘not going anywhere fast’.
    f) As such the only dimension we can likely ‘colonize’ is time. And in that sense, given relative time at mass and velocity (or even independent thereof) for all intents and purposes ‘dimensions’ (differeent rates of life histories) will be effectively infinite.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-24 22:00:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1639386608200818693

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1639333629477416961

  • (Advanced topic warning) a) a dimension refers to a measurement necessary to dis

    (Advanced topic warning)
    a) a dimension refers to a measurement necessary to disambiguate a reference. Or more specifically, in mathematics, to produce a set of vectors that produce a direction of causality that will influence other dimensions of causality. Ergo why we use Manifolds in mathematics to track dense causalities (relations). Our neurons are for all intents and purpose producing vast networks of cause in the manifold that is our neocortex.
    b) The universe only requires three spatial and one time dimensions to describe it. We can use either three linear or two circular(direction) and one linear (scale) dimensions as descriptors.
    c) (Very advanced topic) The universe is incapable of more than those three plus one dimensions – no more dimensions are possible without destroying the prior four.
    d) When we talk of say ten dimensions we are talking about a three step hierarchy of dimensions of causality, each that affects the others within the one time dimensions. In physics this means it is likely that there is at least one more dimension of causality (one more hierarchy of constant states) beneath the quantum background.
    e) Until we end our wasted einsteinian century ‘lost in mathiness’ (pseudoscience), by completing the classical model of the quantum background (we’re close), explaining what we call particles but aren’t (they’re closer to lightning storms that collapse as lightning bolts), and explain the cause of the quantum background we will not know if the speed of light and the mass that results as we compress the quantum background, can be overcome. I have, no one has, any sense as yet whether it’s possible. If not, and, if we cannot capture and use the energy of the quantum background (huge) even if only zero point, then we are ‘not going anywhere fast’.
    f) As such the only dimension we can likely ‘colonize’ is time. And in that sense, given relative time at mass and velocity (or even independent thereof) for all intents and purposes ‘dimensions’ (differeent rates of life histories) will be effectively infinite.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Reply addressees: @whatifalthist

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-24 22:00:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1639386608016187393

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1639333629477416961

  • STAMFORD’S ALPACA’S UNCENSORED (thank god) I need an uncensored baseline, so we

    STAMFORD’S ALPACA’S UNCENSORED (thank god)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2Ua4LkyxRY
    I need an uncensored baseline, so we can teach it P-Method, P-Logic, P-Law, P-Grammars and in particular, use of P-Grammar to identify the method of lying and what’s lied about.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-23 22:48:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1639036431216566275

  • THE UNIVERSE AND MAN IN A NUTSHELL “A universally commensurable, value neutral,

    THE UNIVERSE AND MAN IN A NUTSHELL
    “A universally commensurable, value neutral, paradigm, vocabulary, and grammar of ethics, morality, and politics” results in a formal logic of cooperation (returns on time), and as such a formal logic of law (conflict resolution), and formal logic of politics (commons), and formal logic of economics (scale).

    Now, you wouldn’t think all this was possible, but it turns out that there is just one fundamental law to the universe (evolutionary computation), and a tiny set of derivations of (applications of) that law, as we scale the complexity of the universe from the quantum background to matter, to life, to cooperation(ternary logic), to the words we speak and ideas we produce.

    And as such we can measure variation from that law – that ‘optimum’ minimum variation from the laws of the universe, and maximum exploitation of those laws of the universe, by discovering new means of evolutionary computation wjether by matter biology, cooperation, or ideas. Because there is only one means of improving man’s condition while under continous evolution, and that’s the capture and transformation of energy per capita.

    P-Method, P-Logic, P-Law an the Legal,Constitutional, and Policy Reforms, necessary for our continued evolution – and prevention of another dark age.

    It’s a lot of work. As much as any other STEM degree.
    However, it is the unification of the sciences: physical, behavioral, evolutionary, and formal.

    But it is also the most demanding of our psychology and emotions – because we prefer to cheat mother nature whenever possible. And in doing so violate the laws of nature we call ‘cooperation’.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-22 13:48:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1638538077063847936