Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • Ahmed Reda Says It Best

    AHMED REDA SAYS IT BEST

    —“A Propertarian is expected to (and must) use Mathematics (as a universal language of measurement), Science (as a universal language of testimony), Law and Economics (as a universal language of decidability), Natural history (as a universal language of evidence), Literature (as a universal language of meaning) and Mindfulness (as the means of preventing addictions). And a Propertarian is expected to (and must) demonstrate Agency in pursuit of political power, instead of fantasizing about it.”—Ahmed Reda

  • Ahmed Reda Says It Best

    AHMED REDA SAYS IT BEST

    —“A Propertarian is expected to (and must) use Mathematics (as a universal language of measurement), Science (as a universal language of testimony), Law and Economics (as a universal language of decidability), Natural history (as a universal language of evidence), Literature (as a universal language of meaning) and Mindfulness (as the means of preventing addictions). And a Propertarian is expected to (and must) demonstrate Agency in pursuit of political power, instead of fantasizing about it.”—Ahmed Reda

  • Rate of Mutation Tells Us Little Other than Time

    Rate of Mutation Tells Us Little Other than Time. https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/rate-of-mutation-tells-us-little-other-than-time/

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 21:53:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179877204714512384

  • Rate of Mutation Tells Us Little Other than Time.

    SORRY ALL BUT, NO. RATE OF MUTATION TELLS US LITTLE OTHER THAN TIME. (a) mutation rate != yardage (or any other linear measure) (b) some mutations (cortical scale) are profoundly differentiating – just one gene. (20% of neurons in the cortex are regulatory That number increases by region. The same is true for genes. It certainly appears that the vast majority are either dead (not expressed) or regulatory. We don’t know what percent are expressed. So all mutation rate tells us is time difference it does not tell us difference in genetic expression. (c) some are profoundly consequential (delay in maturity : neoteny – just hormonal development is largely what varies between human races) (d) Genes do not produce linear effects (machine parts) but are causally dense (program code) with anything from zero consequence (noise, or regulatory), some of tiny consequence (rates of expression), and some profound. (e) One Single Additional Protein (molecular machine) may cause billions of consequences. So; (f) Of our evolutionary history, regardless of the RATE of migration, it could be only .001% of those mutations that cause 99.999% of competitive evolutionary variations. (g) we make a big deal out of 3% difference from chimpanzees but we have no idea the scale of difference provided by each of those variations. intelligence appears to be affected by hundreds if not thousands (a concert problem). Neoteny appears not to be (a small number of hormonal channels). Yet together the effect of these two sets is profound with just small changes. (h) As far as I know almost all evolutionary change is driven by: – demand for success in the local environment (ie: black resistance to malaria). – failure in the local environment (loss of height in southeast islands, loss of fire making, tool making, by austronesians.) – utility (white consumption of milk adding 40% more calories to the diet) – social animal sortition (variations in demand for competitive traits) – age of the carriers (rate of mutation or degradation) – errors in replication (genes – which happen all the time – cancer etc ) – conflicts in integration (male and female genes) – random mutations. – combinations of all of the above. On statistics: There isn’t much evidence that we are capable of using statistics on any causally dense phenomenon with any greater precision than a single regression. Period. YOU CAN’T AVERAGE AN AVERAGE, and STATISTICS MUST BE OPERATIONALLY EXPLICABLE OR THEY’RE MEANINGLESS. (correlation is not causation, and operations produce correlations) You have to explain both to make a truth claim.

  • Rate of Mutation Tells Us Little Other than Time.

    SORRY ALL BUT, NO. RATE OF MUTATION TELLS US LITTLE OTHER THAN TIME. (a) mutation rate != yardage (or any other linear measure) (b) some mutations (cortical scale) are profoundly differentiating – just one gene. (20% of neurons in the cortex are regulatory That number increases by region. The same is true for genes. It certainly appears that the vast majority are either dead (not expressed) or regulatory. We don’t know what percent are expressed. So all mutation rate tells us is time difference it does not tell us difference in genetic expression. (c) some are profoundly consequential (delay in maturity : neoteny – just hormonal development is largely what varies between human races) (d) Genes do not produce linear effects (machine parts) but are causally dense (program code) with anything from zero consequence (noise, or regulatory), some of tiny consequence (rates of expression), and some profound. (e) One Single Additional Protein (molecular machine) may cause billions of consequences. So; (f) Of our evolutionary history, regardless of the RATE of migration, it could be only .001% of those mutations that cause 99.999% of competitive evolutionary variations. (g) we make a big deal out of 3% difference from chimpanzees but we have no idea the scale of difference provided by each of those variations. intelligence appears to be affected by hundreds if not thousands (a concert problem). Neoteny appears not to be (a small number of hormonal channels). Yet together the effect of these two sets is profound with just small changes. (h) As far as I know almost all evolutionary change is driven by: – demand for success in the local environment (ie: black resistance to malaria). – failure in the local environment (loss of height in southeast islands, loss of fire making, tool making, by austronesians.) – utility (white consumption of milk adding 40% more calories to the diet) – social animal sortition (variations in demand for competitive traits) – age of the carriers (rate of mutation or degradation) – errors in replication (genes – which happen all the time – cancer etc ) – conflicts in integration (male and female genes) – random mutations. – combinations of all of the above. On statistics: There isn’t much evidence that we are capable of using statistics on any causally dense phenomenon with any greater precision than a single regression. Period. YOU CAN’T AVERAGE AN AVERAGE, and STATISTICS MUST BE OPERATIONALLY EXPLICABLE OR THEY’RE MEANINGLESS. (correlation is not causation, and operations produce correlations) You have to explain both to make a truth claim.

  • Perceivable Dimensions

    Perceivable Dimensions https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/perceivable-dimensions/

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 20:36:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179857777679851521

  • Perceivable Dimensions

    Again. Dimensions.

    1. Logic = Constant relations of sense perceptions.

    2. Identity =(NAMES)

    – Internally consistent, not inconsistent, sets of properties – Constant Relations between collections of properties.

    1. Sets = (LANGUAGE)
    2. Science = (OBSERVATIONS)
    3. Operational = (ACTIONS)

    – Internally consistent (constant, consistent relations), Relations, , .) – Constant relations between collections of references – Empirical, externally correspondent, correlative – Constant Relations between collections of references and reality – Operationally consistent or operationally possible Causation – Constant Relations between collections of references, actions, and reality in time.

    1. Rational (reasonable) = (RATIONAL INCENTIVE)
      (choice)

    2. Reciprocity = (RECIPROCAL INCENTIVES)
      (cooperation)

    This is the full set of dimensions of causality that humans can perceive and compare in order to decide. Each depends upon the one before it. From Eric Danelaw

  • Perceivable Dimensions

    Again. Dimensions.

    1. Logic = Constant relations of sense perceptions.

    2. Identity =(NAMES)

    – Internally consistent, not inconsistent, sets of properties – Constant Relations between collections of properties.

    1. Sets = (LANGUAGE)
    2. Science = (OBSERVATIONS)
    3. Operational = (ACTIONS)

    – Internally consistent (constant, consistent relations), Relations, , .) – Constant relations between collections of references – Empirical, externally correspondent, correlative – Constant Relations between collections of references and reality – Operationally consistent or operationally possible Causation – Constant Relations between collections of references, actions, and reality in time.

    1. Rational (reasonable) = (RATIONAL INCENTIVE)
      (choice)

    2. Reciprocity = (RECIPROCAL INCENTIVES)
      (cooperation)

    This is the full set of dimensions of causality that humans can perceive and compare in order to decide. Each depends upon the one before it. From Eric Danelaw

  • P: We Operationalize the Series Not the Elements

    P: We Operationalize the Series Not the Elements https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/p-we-operationalize-the-series-not-the-elements/

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 20:14:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179852143274188800

  • P: We Operationalize the Series Not the Elements

    P: WE OPERATIONALIZE THE SERIES (Statement) NOT THE ELEMENTS (Evidence)

    —-“Your proclamation as being scientific is also interesting considering the most interesting of your formulations are extrapolations (grammar “word->word”, non-operational, but well condensed.”— Twitter

    (That’s a great question. Very few people have the insight to ask it.)The Methodology:Disambiguation by Enumeration, Serialization and Operationalization. Serialization provides empirical evidence of the spectrum in a given language, even if some terms must be disambiguated. We operationalize the constant relations expressed in the SERIES, not the elements. So if I list the truth spectrum, identify its constant relations, and state them operationally, I have completed the method. (It’s just like geometry, three points make a line, lines are unambiguous). Which is why you see me using geometry in everything. It’s a higher (less ambiguous) standard of measurement. Or said differently, geometry constitutes the most complete grammar we have, and sets are a means of producing ideals and sophism. Or better: all language is measurement. The question is only the precision of the measures. P is the most precise n-dimensional language we have.