Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • 5) Produces extraordinary precision by the intersection just a few variables. 6)

    5) Produces extraordinary precision by the intersection just a few variables.
    6) It’s dehumanizing to some degree, but it’s so obvious its painful.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-15 13:36:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996383722000801792

    Reply addressees: @DegenRolf

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996383501229445120

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @DegenRolf 2) Fast, wide, and synthetic vs slow, deep, and analytic.
    3) Feelings (emotionas) are of high value in synthetic searches, and approach zero value in analytic searches.
    4) Modeling AI using emotions as gauges of change in the state of ‘assets’ taught me a great deal.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/996383501229445120

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @DegenRolf 2) Fast, wide, and synthetic vs slow, deep, and analytic.
    3) Feelings (emotionas) are of high value in synthetic searches, and approach zero value in analytic searches.
    4) Modeling AI using emotions as gauges of change in the state of ‘assets’ taught me a great deal.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/996383501229445120

  • Economists shall measure all changes in capital including genetic, normative, cu

    Economists shall measure all changes in capital including genetic, normative, cultural, and institutional, rather than merely income and productivity – else we do not know whether we spend down our precious long term wealth for short term consumption – congratulating ourselves for nothing other than wasting our inheritance.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-15 07:09:00 UTC

  • THE IMPORTANCE OF THE GRAMMARS I’ve been fussing over the grammars for a few wee

    THE IMPORTANCE OF THE GRAMMARS

    I’ve been fussing over the grammars for a few weeks, and it’s occurred to me that this idea is as important as testimonialism, because it provides a means of comprehending the very great difference between reasoning and calculating.

    So, while I sort of treated it as ‘groundwork’ for testimonialism, I think I’m going to lift it up to it’s own subject under or epistemology.

    My intuition was to move it under Vitruvianism in metaphysics because it’s a system of measurement of sorts and the discussion naturally flows from one idea to the next.

    We’ll see.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-13 17:51:00 UTC

  • —“You Are Wrong About Gods”–

    I’m not wrong about gods at all. The only question is whether it’s possible for not-quite-humans to function without an imaginary pack leader acting as a unit of measurement. I mean, women demonstrate NAXALT, and men demonstrate INTENTIONALITY, and by both demonstrations we can identify the not-yet-human, not yet possessing agency, and therefore not yet capable of sovereignty. Now, I know why the weak mind needs such lies. But the question is, can we train the weak mind to possess sufficient agency that it does not need these lies. It should be possible for many.

  • —“You Are Wrong About Gods”–

    I’m not wrong about gods at all. The only question is whether it’s possible for not-quite-humans to function without an imaginary pack leader acting as a unit of measurement. I mean, women demonstrate NAXALT, and men demonstrate INTENTIONALITY, and by both demonstrations we can identify the not-yet-human, not yet possessing agency, and therefore not yet capable of sovereignty. Now, I know why the weak mind needs such lies. But the question is, can we train the weak mind to possess sufficient agency that it does not need these lies. It should be possible for many.

  • Math Does Not Exist in Reality, We Invented Math to Describe Reality, Because Reality Consists of Constant Relations.

    Due to the limited number of operations available at various temperatures to various particles, and the consequential formation of patterns (symmetries, asymmetries) of constant relations at various scales (force, particle, element, molecule…) due to those limited operations, and the hierarchy of operations possible at different scales, we will easily identify certain consistencies across these scales the same way we will identify consistencies (symmetries) in mathematical fields. Math does not appear in what we study. The use of positional names, provides constant relations at scale independence, and primitive operations on positions (ratios), preserve those constant relations. Ergo, the universe consists of a limited number of fundamental rules the combinations of which at different temperatures and in different proximities produce deterministic (invariant) changes in state equilibrating frequency(energy) those differences as entropy. In other words, the universe, lacks intelligence and choice and as such is entirely deterministic (consisting of constant relations), and since positional names consist of nothing BUT constant relations we can use positional naming constructed of ratios, to produce scale independent general rules (descriptions) of those constant relations. Math is just another language made by man to describe the most trivially simple properties of an invariant choiceness universe. The ability to use math to describe the universe’s regularity is in and of itself evidence of the absence of choice in the universe and therefore evidence of the absence of any intelligence, and as such evidence of the absence of any ‘deity’. There is no evidence of anything in the universe other than random effects of deterministic changes in state producing entropy. That we can created math disproves a god.

  • Math Does Not Exist in Reality, We Invented Math to Describe Reality, Because Reality Consists of Constant Relations.

    Due to the limited number of operations available at various temperatures to various particles, and the consequential formation of patterns (symmetries, asymmetries) of constant relations at various scales (force, particle, element, molecule…) due to those limited operations, and the hierarchy of operations possible at different scales, we will easily identify certain consistencies across these scales the same way we will identify consistencies (symmetries) in mathematical fields. Math does not appear in what we study. The use of positional names, provides constant relations at scale independence, and primitive operations on positions (ratios), preserve those constant relations. Ergo, the universe consists of a limited number of fundamental rules the combinations of which at different temperatures and in different proximities produce deterministic (invariant) changes in state equilibrating frequency(energy) those differences as entropy. In other words, the universe, lacks intelligence and choice and as such is entirely deterministic (consisting of constant relations), and since positional names consist of nothing BUT constant relations we can use positional naming constructed of ratios, to produce scale independent general rules (descriptions) of those constant relations. Math is just another language made by man to describe the most trivially simple properties of an invariant choiceness universe. The ability to use math to describe the universe’s regularity is in and of itself evidence of the absence of choice in the universe and therefore evidence of the absence of any intelligence, and as such evidence of the absence of any ‘deity’. There is no evidence of anything in the universe other than random effects of deterministic changes in state producing entropy. That we can created math disproves a god.

  • by Bill Joslin 1 – God exists through the belief of humans and can be measured b

    by Bill Joslin

    1 – God exists through the belief of humans and can be measured by the actions of believers.

    2 – We create God and make God real through our actions.

    3 – We can testify to this truthfully.

    Opposed to:

    1 – God create everything, everything indicates God’s existence.

    The later equates to a metaphysical lie.

    So, if you can have your God without lies.

    Why lie?

    To secure a monopoly on the authority of truth over reality itself.

    To secure opportunity via theft

    No more lies

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-13 11:28:00 UTC

  • MATH DOES NOT EXiST IN REALITY, WE INVENTED MATH TO DESCRIBE REALITY, BECAUSE RE

    MATH DOES NOT EXiST IN REALITY, WE INVENTED MATH TO DESCRIBE REALITY, BECAUSE REALITY CONSISTS OF CONSTANT RELATIONS.

    Due to the limited number of operations available at various temperatures to various particles, and the consequential formation of patterns (symmetries, asymmetries) of constant relations at various scales (force, particle, element, molecule…) due to those limited operations, and the hierarchy of operations possible at different scales, we will easily identify certain consistencies across these scales the same way we will identify consistencies (symmetries) in mathematical fields.

    Math does not appear in what we study. The use of positional names, provides constant relations at scale independence, and primitive operations on positions (ratios), preserve those constant relations.

    Ergo, the universe consists of a limited number of fundamental rules the combinations of which at different temperatures and in different proximities produce deterministic (invariant) changes in state equilibrating frequency(energy) those differences as entropy.

    In other words, the universe, lacks intelligence and choice and as such is entirely deterministic (consisting of constant relations), and since positional names consist of nothing BUT constant relations we can use positional naming constructed of ratios, to produce scale independent general rules (descriptions) of those constant relations.

    Math is just another language made by man to describe the most trivially simple properties of an invariant choiceness universe.

    The ability to use math to describe the universe’s regularity is in and of itself evidence of the absence of choice in the universe and therefore evidence of the absence of any intelligence, and as such evidence of the absence of any ‘deity’.

    There is no evidence of anything in the universe other than random effects of deterministic changes in state producing entropy.

    That we can created math disproves a god.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-13 10:03:00 UTC

  • There are no laws to mathematics, other than determinism. Positional names are s

    There are no laws to mathematics, other than determinism. Positional names are simply the most reductive grammar of measurement with the lowest possible error. All constant relations can be expressed in positional (constant) names. Not because of any particular magic, but because anything that is measurable between states must be deterministic. Math is a great language precisely because it’s the absolutely dumbest one possible, and as such least open to errors.

    All human progress in the sciences has required us to change our presumptions (models, premises) from intention (complexity) to entropy (parsimony), just as in economics from planning to self organization, and in sentience from the magical to the tediously boring neural. Every advance we have made only eradicates intention (design), and replaces it with self organization (entropy). And in religion from gods to deism to ’the mystery(wonder) of the universe’’s production of everything out of near randomness (self organization).

    Gods do not exist except as a system (language) of measurement, just as numbers do not exist except as a system (language) of measurement.

    Gods are useful as a system (language) of measurment (meaning a hyperbolic and conflationary) just as math is useful as a system (language) of measurement (concise and deflationary).

    The question isn’t whether these things exist (persist) independent of us (they don’t) but whether we can distinguish between these things as useful language constructs of our own design, vs existential.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-13 09:22:00 UTC