Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • Notes on Eric Weinstein’s Theory

    He demonstrates why geometry must remain the basis for mathematics, else it becomes ordinary language with all it’s faults – long standing complaint – and primary pre-war concern of mathematicians who were concerned by the restoration of mysticism in mathematics by empty verbalisms like ‘multiple infinities’ vs ‘pairing off at different rates’. This restoration of mysticism (Cantor, Bohr, and to some degree Keynes) reversed the restoration of mathematics to geometry by Descartes. He does a great job of demonstrating anchoring in any academic endeavor. And that some scientific half-solutions are sources of ignorance. And that generations of malinvested academics have to die off before their sources of ignorance can be overcome. His interjection with illustrations are a romantic cultural indulgence that distracts from his argument. He missed the point on Hilbert – that Einstein created an obstacle by half-finishing the theory and hilbert wouldn’t have. His logic is elegant, interesting, and thorough. And easier to follow than I expected. He does not make the transition from point-geometry to shape geometry. He does not make the connection between the problem of protein folding and the problem of particles producing waves. He identifies an avenue for investigation but he does not get to the point where he grasps that the reason his theory is correct but limited is that the information is insufficient to deduce from the top down or competition between formulae because we cannot measure. And so he doesn’t get to the point of working with primitives (operations) to produce wave forms (aggregates). So he doesn’t get to the point where math might be the wrong tool per se, and that simulations are necessary – by trial and error – to produce the underlying geometry. It’s not obvious that the sub-quantum (statistical) would logically operate by the same rules as chemistry and bio chemistry, molecular biology, and genetics etc – by an operational grammar. So, my suspicion is that “You can’t get there from here”. There is no means of anticipating the grammar (referent, logic, operations, transformations). All we are left with is trial and error. (My sympathies since I had to work outside the academy as well – there is no way to put a dissertation committee together for my work either.) — Curt Doolittle

  • Notes on Eric Weinstein’s Theory

    He demonstrates why geometry must remain the basis for mathematics, else it becomes ordinary language with all it’s faults – long standing complaint – and primary pre-war concern of mathematicians who were concerned by the restoration of mysticism in mathematics by empty verbalisms like ‘multiple infinities’ vs ‘pairing off at different rates’. This restoration of mysticism (Cantor, Bohr, and to some degree Keynes) reversed the restoration of mathematics to geometry by Descartes. He does a great job of demonstrating anchoring in any academic endeavor. And that some scientific half-solutions are sources of ignorance. And that generations of malinvested academics have to die off before their sources of ignorance can be overcome. His interjection with illustrations are a romantic cultural indulgence that distracts from his argument. He missed the point on Hilbert – that Einstein created an obstacle by half-finishing the theory and hilbert wouldn’t have. His logic is elegant, interesting, and thorough. And easier to follow than I expected. He does not make the transition from point-geometry to shape geometry. He does not make the connection between the problem of protein folding and the problem of particles producing waves. He identifies an avenue for investigation but he does not get to the point where he grasps that the reason his theory is correct but limited is that the information is insufficient to deduce from the top down or competition between formulae because we cannot measure. And so he doesn’t get to the point of working with primitives (operations) to produce wave forms (aggregates). So he doesn’t get to the point where math might be the wrong tool per se, and that simulations are necessary – by trial and error – to produce the underlying geometry. It’s not obvious that the sub-quantum (statistical) would logically operate by the same rules as chemistry and bio chemistry, molecular biology, and genetics etc – by an operational grammar. So, my suspicion is that “You can’t get there from here”. There is no means of anticipating the grammar (referent, logic, operations, transformations). All we are left with is trial and error. (My sympathies since I had to work outside the academy as well – there is no way to put a dissertation committee together for my work either.) — Curt Doolittle

  • Our People Use at Least Three Grammars, Speak in A Compromise Grammar (important)

      OUR PEOPLE USE AT LEAST THREE GRAMMARS, SPEAK IN A COMPROMISE GRAMMAR (important) (a grammar = paradigm, vocabulary, operations, logic)

    'OUR PEOPLE USE AT LEAST THREE GRAMMARS, SPEAK IN A COMPROMISE GRAMMAR (important) (a grammar = paradigm, vocabulary, operations, logic) 1) Theology (intuition) Feminine 2) Philosophy (reason) Compromise 3) Law-Science (action) Masculine. and otherwise in: 4) Ordinary (normative) language Some of us specialize. Some of us generalize (ordinary language). Some of us combine. I largely speak in law-science I can bridge to philosophy (rationalism) I can bridge to theology (intuition) This bridges mean 'compromise on common ground' and avoid uncommon ground. We are common ground on natural law, christian love, and some sort of constitution (usually). We are on uncommon ground on atheism, fundamentalism, sophistry and critique, and pseudoscience. Western civilization has always been trifunctional, with 'priests' for law, and faith, and generals for war. We can only succeed as western civilization as trifunctional. Because human beings feel, think, and act by trifunctional differences. Because those differences are biological. And it is the COMPROMISE between those positions by exchange within the market despite our desires for extremes exclusively in our interests that allowed us to out-compete all other peoples until the second semitic destruction of our civilization from within in the 20th century.'

    1) Theology (intuition) Feminine 2) Philosophy (reason) Compromise 3) Law-Science (action) Masculine. and otherwise in: 4) Ordinary (normative) language Some of us specialize. Some of us generalize (ordinary language). Some of us combine. I largely speak in law-science I can bridge to philosophy (rationalism) I can bridge to theology (intuition) This bridges mean ‘compromise on common ground’ and avoid uncommon ground. We are common ground on natural law, christian love, and some sort of constitution (usually). We are on uncommon ground on atheism, fundamentalism, sophistry and critique, and pseudoscience. Western civilization has always been trifunctional, with ‘priests’ for law, and faith, and generals for war. We can only succeed as western civilization as trifunctional. Because human beings feel, think, and act by trifunctional differences. Because those differences are biological. And it is the COMPROMISE between those positions by exchange within the market despite our desires for extremes exclusively in our interests that allowed us to out-compete all other peoples until the second semitic destruction of our civilization from within in the 20th century.’ OUR PEOPLE USE AT LEAST THREE GRAMMARS, SPEAK IN A COMPROMISE GRAMMAR (important) (a grammar = paradigm, vocabulary, operations, logic) 1) Theology (intuition) Feminine 2) Philosophy (reason) Compromise 3) Law-Science (action) Masculine. and otherwise in: 4) Ordinary (normative) language Some of us specialize. Some of us generalize (ordinary language). Some of us combine. I largely speak in law-science I can bridge to philosophy (rationalism) I can bridge to theology (intuition) This bridges mean ‘compromise on common ground’ and avoid uncommon ground. We are common ground on natural law, christian love, and some sort of constitution (usually). We are on uncommon ground on atheism, fundamentalism, sophistry and critique, and pseudoscience. Western civilization has always been trifunctional, with ‘priests’ for law, and faith, and generals for war. We can only succeed as western civilization as trifunctional. Because human beings feel, think, and act by trifunctional differences. Because those differences are biological. And it is the COMPROMISE between those positions by exchange within the market despite our desires for extremes exclusively in our interests that allowed us to out-compete all other peoples until the second semitic destruction of our civilization from within in the 20th century.

  • Our People Use at Least Three Grammars, Speak in A Compromise Grammar (important)

      OUR PEOPLE USE AT LEAST THREE GRAMMARS, SPEAK IN A COMPROMISE GRAMMAR (important) (a grammar = paradigm, vocabulary, operations, logic)

    'OUR PEOPLE USE AT LEAST THREE GRAMMARS, SPEAK IN A COMPROMISE GRAMMAR (important) (a grammar = paradigm, vocabulary, operations, logic) 1) Theology (intuition) Feminine 2) Philosophy (reason) Compromise 3) Law-Science (action) Masculine. and otherwise in: 4) Ordinary (normative) language Some of us specialize. Some of us generalize (ordinary language). Some of us combine. I largely speak in law-science I can bridge to philosophy (rationalism) I can bridge to theology (intuition) This bridges mean 'compromise on common ground' and avoid uncommon ground. We are common ground on natural law, christian love, and some sort of constitution (usually). We are on uncommon ground on atheism, fundamentalism, sophistry and critique, and pseudoscience. Western civilization has always been trifunctional, with 'priests' for law, and faith, and generals for war. We can only succeed as western civilization as trifunctional. Because human beings feel, think, and act by trifunctional differences. Because those differences are biological. And it is the COMPROMISE between those positions by exchange within the market despite our desires for extremes exclusively in our interests that allowed us to out-compete all other peoples until the second semitic destruction of our civilization from within in the 20th century.'

    1) Theology (intuition) Feminine 2) Philosophy (reason) Compromise 3) Law-Science (action) Masculine. and otherwise in: 4) Ordinary (normative) language Some of us specialize. Some of us generalize (ordinary language). Some of us combine. I largely speak in law-science I can bridge to philosophy (rationalism) I can bridge to theology (intuition) This bridges mean ‘compromise on common ground’ and avoid uncommon ground. We are common ground on natural law, christian love, and some sort of constitution (usually). We are on uncommon ground on atheism, fundamentalism, sophistry and critique, and pseudoscience. Western civilization has always been trifunctional, with ‘priests’ for law, and faith, and generals for war. We can only succeed as western civilization as trifunctional. Because human beings feel, think, and act by trifunctional differences. Because those differences are biological. And it is the COMPROMISE between those positions by exchange within the market despite our desires for extremes exclusively in our interests that allowed us to out-compete all other peoples until the second semitic destruction of our civilization from within in the 20th century.’ OUR PEOPLE USE AT LEAST THREE GRAMMARS, SPEAK IN A COMPROMISE GRAMMAR (important) (a grammar = paradigm, vocabulary, operations, logic) 1) Theology (intuition) Feminine 2) Philosophy (reason) Compromise 3) Law-Science (action) Masculine. and otherwise in: 4) Ordinary (normative) language Some of us specialize. Some of us generalize (ordinary language). Some of us combine. I largely speak in law-science I can bridge to philosophy (rationalism) I can bridge to theology (intuition) This bridges mean ‘compromise on common ground’ and avoid uncommon ground. We are common ground on natural law, christian love, and some sort of constitution (usually). We are on uncommon ground on atheism, fundamentalism, sophistry and critique, and pseudoscience. Western civilization has always been trifunctional, with ‘priests’ for law, and faith, and generals for war. We can only succeed as western civilization as trifunctional. Because human beings feel, think, and act by trifunctional differences. Because those differences are biological. And it is the COMPROMISE between those positions by exchange within the market despite our desires for extremes exclusively in our interests that allowed us to out-compete all other peoples until the second semitic destruction of our civilization from within in the 20th century.

  • WHAT DOES EMPIRICAL MEAN?

    Apr 10, 2020, 8:22 AM (core) Empirical: Reciprocally Observable, and therefore agreeable, or disagreeable.

    1. Empirical means observable such that claims can be intersubjectively verifiable or falsifiable: meaning the observation can be “agreed or disagreed upon”;

    2. in addition it means a sufficient volume of observations that we falsify the fragility of episodic memories, our tendency to err, our tendency to find patterns that don’t exist, or to bias the results, and to use both to deceive ;

    3. in addition it means using physical instruments of measurement to compensate for the limits of our senses, perception, and the resulting limits to intuition, prediction, and memory;

    4. in addition it means using logical instruments of measurement (testing) of constant, contingent, inconstant, and non-relations to compensate for the limits of our intuition, imagination, prediction, and reason and as such to prevent claims made in ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.

    5. together consisting of tests of reciprocity of information, and the possibility of Agreement or disagreement by reciprocity of information using due diligence in the falsification of sense, perception, intuition, prediction, and claim by RECIPROCAL due diligence using quantity, quality, consistency, causality.

    See the value of operational language? If you have the words for it, most philosophical discourses is rendered nonsense. See how law (competition) differs from philosophy by reduction to reciprocity not the self (philosophical justification). Like I said, in almost all cases philosophical questions are sophisms due to idealism rather than realism – operational language.

  • WHAT DOES EMPIRICAL MEAN?

    Apr 10, 2020, 8:22 AM (core) Empirical: Reciprocally Observable, and therefore agreeable, or disagreeable.

    1. Empirical means observable such that claims can be intersubjectively verifiable or falsifiable: meaning the observation can be “agreed or disagreed upon”;

    2. in addition it means a sufficient volume of observations that we falsify the fragility of episodic memories, our tendency to err, our tendency to find patterns that don’t exist, or to bias the results, and to use both to deceive ;

    3. in addition it means using physical instruments of measurement to compensate for the limits of our senses, perception, and the resulting limits to intuition, prediction, and memory;

    4. in addition it means using logical instruments of measurement (testing) of constant, contingent, inconstant, and non-relations to compensate for the limits of our intuition, imagination, prediction, and reason and as such to prevent claims made in ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.

    5. together consisting of tests of reciprocity of information, and the possibility of Agreement or disagreement by reciprocity of information using due diligence in the falsification of sense, perception, intuition, prediction, and claim by RECIPROCAL due diligence using quantity, quality, consistency, causality.

    See the value of operational language? If you have the words for it, most philosophical discourses is rendered nonsense. See how law (competition) differs from philosophy by reduction to reciprocity not the self (philosophical justification). Like I said, in almost all cases philosophical questions are sophisms due to idealism rather than realism – operational language.

  • Social Construction Reduction of Cognitive Load

    Apr 21, 2020, 11:48 AM —“Given that it takes a substantial degree of general knowledge to comprehend how “social constructions ” exist largely as a reflection (expression) of biology (and the subsequent distributions that occur when variation of biology interact), social construction theory alleviates the cognitive load required. It is sociological fast food – the cheap and easy fix for ignorance…. you get what you pay for…”—Bill Joslin —“(it’s cultural beer goggles)”— Brandon Hayes

  • The Method – Communication

    (the communication process epistemology)

  • The Method – Communication

    (the communication process epistemology)

  • Whether you can testify to an observation or not isn’t subject to error. This is

    Whether you can testify to an observation or not isn’t subject to error. This is why you can only say ‘i have faith and so I choose to follow faith’. You may not claim a statement of faith is true (testifiable). And you may not lie in defense of your faith. One can’t argue faith.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-20 18:00:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263167679130734592

    Reply addressees: @DSchrooner

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263142178337042435