Theme: Measurement

  • So the methodology I (we) use is disambiguation of causality by serialization. I

    So the methodology I (we) use is disambiguation of causality by serialization. In other words we define processes(operations in time) not states (sets w/o time). So instead of seeking to understand you sought to falsify.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-10-29 18:50:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1321887228822495232

    Reply addressees: @PotsPol

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1321886690617810947


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @PotsPol Again, all contracts (including agreements for meaning) are dependent upon the definition of terms (measurements). I came into this discussion knowing a great deal about this subject, as well as about the problem of pseudoscience in the 20th/21st century.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1321886690617810947

  • Again, all contracts (including agreements for meaning) are dependent upon the d

    Again, all contracts (including agreements for meaning) are dependent upon the definition of terms (measurements). I came into this discussion knowing a great deal about this subject, as well as about the problem of pseudoscience in the 20th/21st century.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-10-29 18:48:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1321886690617810947

    Reply addressees: @PotsPol

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1321880574525669376

  • Yes, although I think I can do a bit better. But yes. He’s the only other smart

    Yes, although I think I can do a bit better. But yes. He’s the only other smart guy I know that has fully shifted from mathematics to operationalism. I think Hawkins is there on consciousness too but he’s less able to articulate it. But literally, that’s it. No one else.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-10-28 22:26:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1321579074901467136

    Reply addressees: @NRxAuthors

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1321577815242952708

  • @Rhodok Sorry. I’ve read this twice and I”m not still shure I understand what yo

    @Rhodok Sorry. I’ve read this twice and I”m not still shure I understand what you’re saying. I think you mean that the correlation in the drop in R0 is what, shutdown? The data i’m seeing directly from cdc et all, is that (a) it’s almost exclusively transmitted at home (b) the risk is almost exclusively over 60, it’s almost entirely through the health, eldercare industry, and (d) disproportionately affects people with ‘bad lifestyle habits’. So rather than regulating and punishing the hell out of violators, and prohibiting gatherings, the idea that we need to shut down the economy or even wear masks is rather ideological rather than empirical, and in suppport of political agendas rather than empirical management of the problem.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-10-28 17:08:57 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105113513978318115

  • Deep Reason For Eugenics

    I think …. well … you know, the whole p-program can be considered an extension of the economic revolution of accounting for the seen and unseen.

    So disambiguation by serialization and operationalization, creating a universal value-neutral logic (vocabulary, logic, and paradigm) of human behavior that is consistent, correspondent, with physical laws. Creating universal commensurability across all fields. Enabling fully accounting regardless of fields. These are just methods of full accounting of the seen and unseen. Methods of increasing the SCALE of the cognitive model of humans to correspond to the scale of human knowledge – and human cooperation (or non).

    Throughout history man – at least western man – has sought to satisfy his sense of wonder, by increasing the scale of the model and the consistency and coherence of the model.

    And the problem has been that most civilizations cannot tolerate the truth of the physical, natural, and evolutionary laws – because they are unkind to the peasantry, where the peasantry was the source of income (taxation) during the agrarian revolution.

    So that there is a continuous struggle between the demand to rise in affluence and agency and the productivity of the underclasses that resist it and drag down the civilization into a stasis because it’s against their interests. The only solution of course is matching reproductive fertily to match technological demands.

    This means furthermore that in a world where peasants are no longer needed to fight or no longer needed to farm, or even no longer needed to produce, that they have no function.

    So that the long term goal of any people that wish to pass the great filter must be one that allows civilization wide adaptation with minimum resistance.

  • Deep Reason For Eugenics

    I think …. well … you know, the whole p-program can be considered an extension of the economic revolution of accounting for the seen and unseen.

    So disambiguation by serialization and operationalization, creating a universal value-neutral logic (vocabulary, logic, and paradigm) of human behavior that is consistent, correspondent, with physical laws. Creating universal commensurability across all fields. Enabling fully accounting regardless of fields. These are just methods of full accounting of the seen and unseen. Methods of increasing the SCALE of the cognitive model of humans to correspond to the scale of human knowledge – and human cooperation (or non).

    Throughout history man – at least western man – has sought to satisfy his sense of wonder, by increasing the scale of the model and the consistency and coherence of the model.

    And the problem has been that most civilizations cannot tolerate the truth of the physical, natural, and evolutionary laws – because they are unkind to the peasantry, where the peasantry was the source of income (taxation) during the agrarian revolution.

    So that there is a continuous struggle between the demand to rise in affluence and agency and the productivity of the underclasses that resist it and drag down the civilization into a stasis because it’s against their interests. The only solution of course is matching reproductive fertily to match technological demands.

    This means furthermore that in a world where peasants are no longer needed to fight or no longer needed to farm, or even no longer needed to produce, that they have no function.

    So that the long term goal of any people that wish to pass the great filter must be one that allows civilization wide adaptation with minimum resistance.

  • RT @curtdoolittle: @curri_tibio @BrankoMilan @fsaraceno Or perhaps more clearly,

    RT @curtdoolittle: @curri_tibio @BrankoMilan @fsaraceno Or perhaps more clearly, economic aggregates only describe information that’s usele…


    Source date (UTC): 2020-10-27 20:25:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1321186222753124352

  • RACE, CULTURE, CLASS, SEX: Stereotypes are the most accurate measure in social s

    RACE, CULTURE, CLASS, SEX: Stereotypes are the most accurate measure in social science. So give individuals the benefit of the doubt because it’s an empirical test you can run yourself. Don’t give groups the benefit of the doubt because it’s an empirical test that HAS BEEN RUN.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-10-27 18:52:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1321162774005821452

  • Or perhaps more clearly, economic aggregates only describe information that’s us

    Or perhaps more clearly, economic aggregates only describe information that’s useless. Changes in economic operations (processes) tell us information that is useful. This is why people think they’re smart investors when it has nothing to do with them, and bad when it does. Sigh.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-10-27 17:48:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1321146863081431042

    Reply addressees: @curri_tibio @BrankoMilan @fsaraceno

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1321131847259164673

  • Correct. And obvious. Which is why even the existence of this line of questionin

    Correct. And obvious. Which is why even the existence of this line of questioning bothers me. Economic Aggregates only tell us what should happen without ‘error’ in the equilibria. So what was the error? Banks. That’s why we’re going to eventually see nationalization of sav/inv..


    Source date (UTC): 2020-10-27 17:46:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1321146338998947841

    Reply addressees: @curri_tibio @BrankoMilan @fsaraceno

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1321131847259164673