Theme: Measurement

  • 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.

  • A Question About the Cortex

    —“Does the commensurability of the edge of the cerebral cortex require fractal geometry, like a coastline? Does it have self similarity?”—The Nationalist @Nationalist7346

    No.

    1. the outer layer of the cortex is just a couple of mm thick; consists two functions (what,where), using six layers; divided into columns and modules (groups of columns); homogenous in structure but differing in neural density by physical origin of nerves that enter them.

    2. So no it’s not fractal: the average size of a human cortex, if laid out flat would be approximately the size of a dinner napkin, and just as thick. The rest of the neocortex consists entirely of white matter (nerve fibers: axons) which connect everything to everything.

    3. With the hippocampus consolidating and organizing information, and then using rehearsal (replay) to encode episodes of memory, and thalamus controlling attention (what gets thru to the neocortex for computation, and basal ganglia that surrounds both releasing physical actions.

    4. Most of the advanced functions of the brain consist of these three ‘levers’ and the natural increase in reflection created by increasing brain size, from back (senses) to front (permuting, planning, manipulating). So the brain functions as a series of loops (operating system)

    5. That recursively process a moment of information and merge it with the next moment of information in a continuous stream which we can ‘buffer’ with a half life of just a few seconds, and no more than twenty or so. By Comparison of these moments we discern change in state.

    6. When people say the brain isn’t a computer they’re only a tiny bit right. It does operate in binary (on off) and frequency (hertz), and by competition for attention but with unimaginable numbers of connections in unimaginable parallel, in a continuous loop (OS).

  • A Question About the Cortex

    —“Does the commensurability of the edge of the cerebral cortex require fractal geometry, like a coastline? Does it have self similarity?”—The Nationalist @Nationalist7346

    No.

    1. the outer layer of the cortex is just a couple of mm thick; consists two functions (what,where), using six layers; divided into columns and modules (groups of columns); homogenous in structure but differing in neural density by physical origin of nerves that enter them.

    2. So no it’s not fractal: the average size of a human cortex, if laid out flat would be approximately the size of a dinner napkin, and just as thick. The rest of the neocortex consists entirely of white matter (nerve fibers: axons) which connect everything to everything.

    3. With the hippocampus consolidating and organizing information, and then using rehearsal (replay) to encode episodes of memory, and thalamus controlling attention (what gets thru to the neocortex for computation, and basal ganglia that surrounds both releasing physical actions.

    4. Most of the advanced functions of the brain consist of these three ‘levers’ and the natural increase in reflection created by increasing brain size, from back (senses) to front (permuting, planning, manipulating). So the brain functions as a series of loops (operating system)

    5. That recursively process a moment of information and merge it with the next moment of information in a continuous stream which we can ‘buffer’ with a half life of just a few seconds, and no more than twenty or so. By Comparison of these moments we discern change in state.

    6. When people say the brain isn’t a computer they’re only a tiny bit right. It does operate in binary (on off) and frequency (hertz), and by competition for attention but with unimaginable numbers of connections in unimaginable parallel, in a continuous loop (OS).

  • A Question About the Cortex

    —“Does the commensurability of the edge of the cerebral cortex require fractal geometry, like a coastline? Does it have self similarity?”—The Nationalist @Nationalist7346

    No.

    1. the outer layer of the cortex is just a couple of mm thick; consists two functions (what,where), using six layers; divided into columns and modules (groups of columns); homogenous in structure but differing in neural density by physical origin of nerves that enter them.

    2. So no it’s not fractal: the average size of a human cortex, if laid out flat would be approximately the size of a dinner napkin, and just as thick. The rest of the neocortex consists entirely of white matter (nerve fibers: axons) which connect everything to everything.

    3. With the hippocampus consolidating and organizing information, and then using rehearsal (replay) to encode episodes of memory, and thalamus controlling attention (what gets thru to the neocortex for computation, and basal ganglia that surrounds both releasing physical actions.

    4. Most of the advanced functions of the brain consist of these three ‘levers’ and the natural increase in reflection created by increasing brain size, from back (senses) to front (permuting, planning, manipulating). So the brain functions as a series of loops (operating system)

    5. That recursively process a moment of information and merge it with the next moment of information in a continuous stream which we can ‘buffer’ with a half life of just a few seconds, and no more than twenty or so. By Comparison of these moments we discern change in state.

    6. When people say the brain isn’t a computer they’re only a tiny bit right. It does operate in binary (on off) and frequency (hertz), and by competition for attention but with unimaginable numbers of connections in unimaginable parallel, in a continuous loop (OS).

  • A Question About the Cortex

    —“Does the commensurability of the edge of the cerebral cortex require fractal geometry, like a coastline? Does it have self similarity?”—The Nationalist @Nationalist7346

    No.

    1. the outer layer of the cortex is just a couple of mm thick; consists two functions (what,where), using six layers; divided into columns and modules (groups of columns); homogenous in structure but differing in neural density by physical origin of nerves that enter them.

    2. So no it’s not fractal: the average size of a human cortex, if laid out flat would be approximately the size of a dinner napkin, and just as thick. The rest of the neocortex consists entirely of white matter (nerve fibers: axons) which connect everything to everything.

    3. With the hippocampus consolidating and organizing information, and then using rehearsal (replay) to encode episodes of memory, and thalamus controlling attention (what gets thru to the neocortex for computation, and basal ganglia that surrounds both releasing physical actions.

    4. Most of the advanced functions of the brain consist of these three ‘levers’ and the natural increase in reflection created by increasing brain size, from back (senses) to front (permuting, planning, manipulating). So the brain functions as a series of loops (operating system)

    5. That recursively process a moment of information and merge it with the next moment of information in a continuous stream which we can ‘buffer’ with a half life of just a few seconds, and no more than twenty or so. By Comparison of these moments we discern change in state.

    6. When people say the brain isn’t a computer they’re only a tiny bit right. It does operate in binary (on off) and frequency (hertz), and by competition for attention but with unimaginable numbers of connections in unimaginable parallel, in a continuous loop (OS).

  • We must only know whether we are using the sufficient degree of precision for th

    We must only know whether we are using the sufficient degree of precision for the question, whether we lack information for, or are ignorant of, further precision, or whether we are obscuring greater precision for dishonest purposes. Theology uses all three – unfortunately.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 11:33:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179721114756505600

    Reply addressees: @undercoverhere1

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179720554208739330


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @undercoverhere1 It’s just a degree of precision:Analogy (wisdom) for broad, Virtues for less broad, General Rules for narrower, Law for narrower, science for narrower, and math for narrowest. This range allows us graceful increase and decrease in precision – or dishonestly, to obscure precision.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1179720554208739330


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @undercoverhere1 It’s just a degree of precision:Analogy (wisdom) for broad, Virtues for less broad, General Rules for narrower, Law for narrower, science for narrower, and math for narrowest. This range allows us graceful increase and decrease in precision – or dishonestly, to obscure precision.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1179720554208739330

  • It’s just a degree of precision:Analogy (wisdom) for broad, Virtues for less bro

    It’s just a degree of precision:Analogy (wisdom) for broad, Virtues for less broad, General Rules for narrower, Law for narrower, science for narrower, and math for narrowest. This range allows us graceful increase and decrease in precision – or dishonestly, to obscure precision.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 11:31:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179720554208739330

    Reply addressees: @undercoverhere1

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179719922726969349


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @undercoverhere1 Wisdom literature is awesome. Fairy Tales, Myths, Legends, all use unknown forces to educate us. That’s just different from using wisdom (advice) as truth (decidability). One cannot deduce in argument from such premises. But one can seek counsel, and give counsel with wisdom.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1179719922726969349


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @undercoverhere1 Wisdom literature is awesome. Fairy Tales, Myths, Legends, all use unknown forces to educate us. That’s just different from using wisdom (advice) as truth (decidability). One cannot deduce in argument from such premises. But one can seek counsel, and give counsel with wisdom.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1179719922726969349

  • I am not sure but i think this latter measure is what taleb tried to discover an

    I am not sure but i think this latter measure is what taleb tried to discover and failed. My understanding is we will not know it before we develop AI’s with GAI. Hippocampus, Cornu Ammonis, sec. 3 provides our auto association. Thatamic attention focuses association/prediction.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-02 03:45:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179241071567618048

    Reply addressees: @mizroba @LTF_01

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179239804204126210


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @mizroba @LTF_01 Well, since we produce hypotheses by free association with what we would consider practically infinite causal dimensions it’s partly true. But (a) we can reverse engineer them afterward, and (b) there appears a measurable ‘distance’ of prediction we can begin to identify.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1179239804204126210


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @mizroba @LTF_01 Well, since we produce hypotheses by free association with what we would consider practically infinite causal dimensions it’s partly true. But (a) we can reverse engineer them afterward, and (b) there appears a measurable ‘distance’ of prediction we can begin to identify.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1179239804204126210

  • WHY LEARN THE GRAMMARS? If you study math, programming, the physical sciences, e

    WHY LEARN THE GRAMMARS?

    If you study math, programming, the physical sciences, economics, or law, you will notice the similarity, in that there are n-number of software design patterns at every level of complexity; n-number of physical laws at every level of complexity; there are n-number of economic ideas at every level of complexity; and n-number of properties of law at contract, jurisprudence, and state authority; and you learn the economic ideas by the association with the author, and the legal ideas by association with a case; the programming ideas by label, example or function, and the mathematic ideas at every increase in dimensions (shapes) by the most absurd archaic nonsense language humanly possible.

    These different disciplines only ‘seem’ dissimilar or complicated, but they are all reducible to a common paradigm (ontology) and terminology, which once understood is … profoundly enlightening.

    This is what The Grammars in Propertarianism explain.

    That there is a regular, obvious pattern to the available operations at every level of complexity, where a level is defined as the set of operations possible before a subsequent operation is possible. In other words, you can’t make a molecule without an element, or an element without an elementary particle, or an elementary particle without the elementary forces.

    This particular pattern will explain language to you in a way that will explain all languages to you whether that language is one we speak, or one consisting of operations possible in the physical, sentient, and social world.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-29 19:19:00 UTC

  • DOES P EPISTEMOLOGY STACK UP? by Curt Doolittle, for philosophy supernerds. (Q v

    DOES P EPISTEMOLOGY STACK UP?

    by Curt Doolittle, for philosophy supernerds.

    (Q via Joel Davis )

    Well, all of these examples are correct criticisms of justificationism. But P is ONLY falsificationary. Ideal truth and promises of ideal proof are all fallacies in P. All we can know is what we can testify to, and if we exhaust all possible dimensions that we can testify to, we can claim that our statements propositions theories promises are not false, and whether they are sufficient to solve the demand for infallibility for the question proposed. In other words, all truth in P is the result of competition between opposing forces. Because like Reason (hypothesis), Action (operation), and Consequence (empiricism) all knowledge is the product of the same series: hypothesis, the set of which eliminates opportunities for falsehood from the field of possibilities.

    Proof originated in the mathematics of geometry, under which ‘proof’ refers to the possibility of composing a measurement. So a proof refers to a proof of possibility.

    Now, the problem here is rather simple. Mathematics (alone) consists of ratios. So all numbers are some ratio of 1. Ratios are scale independent. Or stated with a different term: limit independent – which is why we can talk about existential impossibilities like infinity. Infinity CAN only mean ‘unknown limit’ given the scale demands of the question at hand.

    But there are no non tautological unlimited statements. Information expressed in language is always less than that in the universe that the language corresponds to (is consistent with, not incommensurable with).

    There is no premise in mathematics beyond the identity 1 and it’s universal possibility of assignment of correspondence to any category we choose. Math is simply the most simple possible language we can speak in: it has only one dimension: position, and all positions are just names of ratios to the identity 1 of the category. That’s not true of other language: all other non tautological human statements depend upon a premise and limits. Were Aristotle, Newton, and Einstein in error? Clearly, they were in error beyond the limit of that which they propose to describe. But they each met the demand for infallibility at the scale they described.

    Likewise, we do not use ‘proof’ in court, we use evidence sufficient to persuade the jury beyond reasonable doubt given the demand for infallibility in the matter in question (standards are higher with the death penalty than a small claims issue – which is why murder trials are expensive.)

    So, P uses exhaustive (complete) falsification (due diligence), warranty of that due diligence, and demand for infallibility given the question at hand – all via negativa – rather than some nonsensical idealism called “truth”. We can speak truthfully, but we can never – or at least in any non trivial question – know if we speak “the most parsimonious operational name possible”: Truth.

    So for example, empirical evidence can be used to falsify a criticism, but it does not promise ideal truth. Operational possibility, even repeatability, doesn’t tell us much, only the failure of all alternatives. We know the problem of repeatability of error.

    Falsification (process of elimination) is a very ‘expensive’ epistemology which is why it’s been avoided throughout history. People want to work with what’s in their heads whenever possible – because it’s cheap – but it’s also not warrantable as having survived due diligence.

    In other words, man must be able to identify a dimension he is able to testify to other than the logical, operational, empirical, rational, and it’s the COMPETITION between those testimonies under limits, completeness (full accounting within limits), parsimony, and coherence that reduce the opportunity for ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit.

    So I do not use a trivial ideal truth (sophistry) nor justification nor proof. I use a competition by attempted falsification of every dimensions open to human perception that humans can perform due diligence against, and can warranty, hopefully to the point of restitution, if they err. And determine the standard of truth by the demand for infallibility for the given question.

    Why is this unappealing? You can’t use witty words to overload common people with sophomoric ‘proofs’ and accusations of insufficiency or contradiction.

    Where did this emphasis on ‘proof’ come from? It came from scriptural interpretation in the religious world, and legal interpretation in the secular world, mathematics in the intellectual world, and moral license in the vulgar world.

    If you can falsify Testimonialism (I don’t think it can be done) then I wold like to know but I have been working on this problem for ten years now and I’m pretty certain that it’s invulnerable, and it is probably the end of the european testimonial (scientific) program.

    I think metaphysics, epistemology, psychology, sociology, law, and politics are solved, at least at the scales and limits I am able to perceive given human abilities within the physical universe at this time.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-29 17:02:00 UTC