RT @EricRWeinstein: PREDICTION: Google Ngram Viewer will be shut down one day for public access. It is simply too subversive.
GNV is one o…
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-20 18:18:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770515240062509512
It’s not concrete and testable enough. And this form of construction is used only when trying to manipulate by use of conflation.
The west consists of the natural religions, the germanic semi-formalization, the greco-roman formalization, and the greek philosophical formation, culminating in stoicism.
The method for comparing civilizational differences consists of:
1) Given the three means of coercion possible:
… 1. Religion/Social by Seduction/Ostracization
… 2. Economic by Trade/Boycott
… 3. State by Defense/Violence
2) Given the path dependence of institutional formation:
… 1. Religion(Strong) > State(Weak) > Law(fail)
… 2. Religion(Strong) > Law(Weak) > State(fail)
… 3. State(Strong) > Religion(Weak) > Law (fail)
… 4. State(Strong) > Law (Weak) > Religion (fail)
… 5. Law(Strong) > Religion(Weak) > State (fail)
… 6. Law(Strong) > State(weak) > Religion (fail)
3) Given the Innovative ability of those institutions:
… 1. Limited: Religion
… 2. Only Under Stress: State
… 3. Continuous: Law
4) Given the adaptability of those institutions:
… 1. Slow: Religion
… 2. Medium: Law
… 3. Fast: State
5) Given the demographic composition of the polity (IQ):
… Slow: Below Minimum (85) – no innovation or adaptation
… Medium: Below Innovation (100) – adaptation
… Fast: Above threshold (105) – innovation
6) In addition:
… Relationship between rulers and ruled (parasitic vs productive)
… Homogeneity (good) vs Heterogeneity (bad)
… Resources
… Geography
… Climate
… Condition vs competing states.
This determines the condition of the population.
Cheers
Reply addressees: @Saurabh_Shah1 @radiofreenw
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-20 17:46:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770507251679174656
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770502259614310896
I don’t understand why people with fragmentary knowledge waste my time by arguing with me. (Sigh)
Those numbers are aggregates (averages) of distributions. They are not measures of outliers.
If you even make that significant a mistake on such a simple statistical question why…
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-19 14:59:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770102901580382703
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770088926474072356
SOURCES OF MY CORE IDEAS, FWIW:
I use some ideas that are directly from the work of others:
1. Chomsky’s continuous recursive disambiguation as universal grammar turns out to be the universal law of everything.
2. Baron-Cohen’s empathizing vs systematizing – really is the key to all psychology.
3. I use the big 5/6 and combine with with intelligence to show it’s all just variation in information processing.
4. Haidt’s moral foundations that I converted to demonstrated interests (property)
5. Hoppe’s reduction of all social science to statments of demonstrated interest.
6. Most of the rest is my work that is all derived from analysis of language (the grammars) and neuroscience and genetics. I simply can’t emphasize enough the importance of that work. And the logic I use computational, constructive(operational), economic (Gary Becker), and evolutionary which means I must decompose all phenomenon into first principles and reconstruct each phenomena from them (write a proof).
Reply addressees: @bootlegapples
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-19 13:01:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770073183875403778
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1769791842873114772
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
SOURCES OF CORE IDEAS
FWIW: The two three I use that are directly from the work of others are
1. Chomsky’s continuous recursive disambiguation as universal grammar turns out to be the universal law of everything.
2. Baron-Cohen’s empathizing vs systematizing – really is the key to it all.
3. I use the big 5/6 and combine with with intelligence to show it’s all just information processing.
4. Haidt’s moral foundations that I converted to demonstrated interests (property)
5. Hoppe’s reduction of all social science to statments of demonstrated interest.
6. Most of the rest is my work that is all derived from analysis of language (the grammars) and neuroscience and genetics. I simply can’t emphasize enough the importance of that work. And the logic I use computational, constructive(operational), economic (Gary Becker), and evolutionary which means I must decompose all phenomenon into first principles and reconstruct each phenomena from them (write a proof).
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1769791842873114772
No. It’s quite simple if you aren’t ignorant of the subject matter. For the ignorant, a ‘feature’ means a ‘variable’ in the context. As such ‘you need more data than variables’ is simply obvious. Which is why he stated the same thing regarding genetics for the same reason.
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-19 12:34:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770066236111479139
Reply addressees: @BobJone77944187 @Glace15840573 @MindEnjoyer
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770064525380759901
SOURCES OF CORE IDEAS
FWIW: The two three I use that are directly from the work of others are
1. Chomsky’s continuous recursive disambiguation as universal grammar turns out to be the universal law of everything.
2. Baron-Cohen’s empathizing vs systematizing – really is the key to it all.
3. I use the big 5/6 and combine with with intelligence to show it’s all just information processing.
4. Haidt’s moral foundations that I converted to demonstrated interests (property)
5. Hoppe’s reduction of all social science to statments of demonstrated interest.
6. Most of the rest is my work that is all derived from analysis of language (the grammars) and neuroscience and genetics. I simply can’t emphasize enough the importance of that work. And the logic I use computational, constructive(operational), economic (Gary Becker), and evolutionary which means I must decompose all phenomenon into first principles and reconstruct each phenomena from them (write a proof).
Reply addressees: @bootlegapples
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-18 18:23:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1769791842755727361
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1769788538805973135
SOME FIRST PRINCIPLES
Existence:
Homogeneity
Pressure
“Spin”
Polarization
Recombination
Ternary logic of Evolution
Evolutionary computation by continuous recursive disambiguation of disorder into order (matter) or dissipation into disorder (space).
Perception:
All human sense and perception can be reduced to tests of consistency of subjectively testable relations.
Humans can sense, perceive, and test only so many dimensions of relations: realism, naturalism, identity, consistency, correspondence, operational possibility, rational choice, reciprocity, completeness(limits, full accounting), warrantability, liability, testifiability.
Description:
All languages consist of references (terms) consisting of n-dimensions of measurement (natural order).
All languages consist of paradigms limiting permissible dimensions of terms.
All paradigms consists of rules of continuous recursive disambiguation of disorder (ambiguity) into identity (unambiguity) called grammars.
Mathematics constitutes the most reductive language consisting only of an observer, references, relations, operations, and agreements (equalities,inequalities).
All language can be constructed from observer, references (nouns, verbs), relations, agreements.
Meaning origin, points, vectors, operations, equalites.
Meaning the universe can be constructed in language from manifolds of n-dimensions.
Operations:
1. Verbal reducibility is unlimited.
2. Computational reducibility is smaller than verbal reducibility.
3. Mathematical reducibility is smaller than computational reducibility.
4. First principles are irreducible.
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-11 19:09:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1767266536081821696
SOME FIRST PRINCIPLES
Existence:
Homogeneity
Pressure
“Spin”
Polarization
Recombination
Ternary logic of Evolution
Evolutionary computation by continuous recursive disambiguation of disorder into order (matter) or dissipation into disorder (space).
Perception:
All human sense and perception can be reduced to testes of consistency of subjectively testable relations.
Humans can sense, perceive, and test only so many dimensions of relations: realism, naturalism, identity, consistency, correspondence, operational possibility, rational choice, reciprocity, completeness(limits, full accounting), warrantability, liability, testifiability.
Description:
All languages consist of references (terms) consisting of n-dimensions of measurement (natural order).
All languages consist of paradigms limiting permissible dimensions of terms.
All paradigms consists of rules of continuous recursive disambiguation of disorder (ambiguity) into identity (unambiguity) called grammars.
Mathematics constitutes the most reductive language consisting only of an observer, references, relations, operations, and agreements (equalities,inequalities).
All language can be constructed from observer, references (nouns, verbs), relations, agreements.
Meaning origin, points, vectors, operations, equalites.
Meaning the universe can be constructed in language from manifolds of n-dimensions.
Operations:
1. Verbal reducibility is unlimited.
2. Computational reducibility is smaller than verbal reducibility.
3. Mathematical reducibility is smaller than computational reducibility.
4. First principles are irreducible.
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-11 19:09:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1767266234670645249
We address this issue with ‘limits based reasoning, and full accounting’. Chesterson’s era lacked the knowledge of the universe that we have learned, and so he couldn’t think beyond the second order framework. But the general direction of his reasoning was correct. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-11 17:12:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1767237075256955035
Reply addressees: @FuryForth @GlitchAmer85803 @Y_Contributor @RebuildingtheA2
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1767042262242828564
Yes true, but our concern is ‘universal commensurability’ in other words we are trying to produce ‘the final logic’ across all disciplines. My work in behavioral science and logic and Michael’s work in Mathematics both achieve this end. I start with first principles, and explain…
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-11 17:07:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1767235940014051381
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1767234667286040991