Theme: Measurement

  • “how can he scientifically prove that everything he experiences is real?”– Easi

    –“how can he scientifically prove that everything he experiences is real?”–

    Easily. With extraordinary precision.
    Though sense(stimuli), percieve (observables), and experience (imagination) are three different things.
    We even know how to explain Qualia.
    There is nothing left…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-09 22:22:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633956460659867649

    Reply addressees: @atlanteanfate @Esoteric_Dago @demosphachtes @CharlesL1902 @KetaIDFBabe

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633949449922785281

  • (New Followers) WHY IS WHAT YOU AND THE OTHERS WRITE COMPLICATED? The short answ

    (New Followers)
    WHY IS WHAT YOU AND THE OTHERS WRITE COMPLICATED?
    The short answer is that it looks like language but it’s much closer to math.

    Please notice how I use:
    … a) ‘lists’ (serializations) and
    … b) ‘balances between male and female’ (equilibrations)
    … c) ‘operational language’ (actions)
    … d) And weaving together lists and balances to illustrate the consistency of the properties of the universe, including humans, over time.

    This structure is the equivlant of writing object-oriented program code. Where the purpose of object-oriented programming is to produce Simulations that survive adversarial competition (life and evolution).

    For example:
    … a) Serialized lists = Types
    … b) Equilibrations = Functions
    … c) Operational language = Syntax
    … d) Together = Classes

    WHY?
    Because if you write in this way, in complete sentences in operational language, using definitions by types, and equilibrations by functions together in classes, it is very difficult to error, bias, or deceive (yourself or others) without the grammar and syntax exposing that fact.

    This doesn’t mean we write everything algorithmically. It means that we can expand anything we write into algorithms, classes, types, and functions and test what we hear or what we have said.

    As in most programming languages, there are a limited number of rules. Likewise in human experience, there are a limited number of rules. And there aren’t very many. There is a very simple ternary logic to these rules. The ‘work’ in learning this method of testing the truth of any statement is largely in memorizing how to use these techniques on the one hand and overcoming your intuitions that you assume are products of reason so that you are in fact relying on reason and ‘computation’.

    I hope this helps.
    Cheers
    -Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 23:53:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633616867213430785

  • (New Followers) WHY IS WHAT YOU AND THE OTHERS WRITE COMPLICATED? The short answ

    (New Followers)
    WHY IS WHAT YOU AND THE OTHERS WRITE COMPLICATED?
    The short answer is that it looks like language but it’s much closer to math.

    Please notice how I use:
    … a) ‘lists’ (serializations) and
    … b) ‘balances between male and female’ (equilibrations)
    … c) ‘operational language’ (actions)
    … d) And weaving together lists and balances to illustrate the consistency of the properties of the universe, including humans, over time.

    This structure is the equivlant of writing object-oriented program code. Where the purpose of object-oriented programming is to produce Simulations that survive adversarial competition (life and evolution).

    For example:
    … a) Serialized lists = Types
    … b) Equilibrations = Functions
    … c) Operational language = Syntax
    … d) Together = Classes

    WHY?
    Because if you write in this way, in complete sentences in operational language, using definitions by types, and equilibrations by functions together in classes, it is very difficult to error, bias, or deceive (yourself or others) without the grammar and syntax exposing that fact.

    This doesn’t mean we write everything algorithmically. It means that we can expand anything we write into algorithms, classes, types, and functions and test what we hear or what we have said.

    As in most programming languages, there are a limited number of rules. Likewise in human experience, there are a limited number of rules. And there aren’t very many. There is a very simple ternary logic to these rules. The ‘work’ in learning this method of testing the truth of any statement is largely in memorizing how to use these techniques on the one hand and overcoming your intuitions that you assume are products of reason so that you are in fact relying on reason and ‘computation’.

    I hope this helps.
    Cheers
    -Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 23:53:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633616867473358848

  • (New Followers) WHY IS WHAT YOU AND THE OTHERS WRITE COMPLICATED? The short answ

    (New Followers)
    WHY IS WHAT YOU AND THE OTHERS WRITE COMPLICATED?
    The short answer is that it looks like language but it’s much closer to math.

    Please notice how I use:
    … a) ‘lists’ (serializations) and
    … b) ‘balances between male and female’ (equilibrations)
    … c) ‘operational language’ (actions)
    … d) And weaving together lists and balances to illustrate the consistency of the properties of the universe, including humans, over time.

    This structure is the equivlant of writing object-oriented program code. Where the purpose of object-oriented programming is to produce Simulations that survive adversarial competition (life and evolution).

    For example:
    … a) Serialized lists = Types
    … b) Equilibrations = Functions
    … c) Operational language = Syntax
    … d) Together = Classes

    WHY?
    Because if you write in this way, in complete sentences in operational language, using definitions by types, and equilibrations by functions together in classes, it is very difficult to error, bias, or deceive (yourself or others) without the grammar and syntax exposing that fact.

    This doesn’t mean we write everything algorithmically. It means that we can expand anything we write into algorithms, classes, types, and functions and test what we hear of what we have said.

    As in most programming languages, there are a limited number of rules. Likewise in human experience, there are a limited number of rules. And there aren’t very many. There is a very simple ternary logic to these rules. The ‘work’ in learning this method of testing the truth of any statement is largely in memorizing how to use these techniques on the one hand and overcoming your intuitions that you assume are products of reason so that you are in fact relying on reason and ‘computation’.

    I hope this helps.
    Cheers
    -Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 23:53:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633616576174858240

  • (New Followers) WHY IS WHAT YOU AND THE OTHERS WRITE COMPLICATED? The short answ

    (New Followers)
    WHY IS WHAT YOU AND THE OTHERS WRITE COMPLICATED?
    The short answer is that it looks like language but it’s much closer to math.

    Please notice how I use:
    … a) ‘lists’ (serializations) and
    … b) ‘balances between male and female’ (equilibrations)
    … c) ‘operational language’ (actions)
    … d) And weaving together lists and balances to illustrate the consistency of the properties of the universe, including humans, over time.

    This structure is the equivlant of writing object-oriented program code. Where the purpose of object-oriented programming is to produce Simulations that survive adversarial competition (life and evolution).

    For example:
    … a) Serialized lists = Types
    … b) Equilibrations = Functions
    … c) Operational language = Syntax
    … d) Together = Classes

    WHY?
    Because if you write in this way, in complete sentences in operational language, using definitions by types, and equilibrations by functions together in classes, it is very difficult to error, bias, or deceive (yourself or others) without the grammar and syntax exposing that fact.

    This doesn’t mean we write everything
    algorithmically. It means that we can expand anything we write into algorithms, classes, types, and functions and test what we hear of what we have said.

    As in most programming languages there are a limited number of rules. Likewise in human experience, there are a limited number of rules. And there aren’t very many. There is a very simple ternary logic to these rules. The ‘work’ in learning this method of testing the truth of any statement is largely in memorizing how to use these techniques on the one hand and overcoming your intuitions that you assume are products of reason so that you are in fact relying on reason and ‘computation’.

    I hope this helps.
    Cheers
    -Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 23:53:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633616006487633920

  • Well done. Now, how do we know the difference unless we’ve asked people if they

    Well done. Now, how do we know the difference unless we’ve asked people if they do? And will they now know the difference once we’ve asked them? And if they do so how will their behavior change?


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 23:32:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633611590619545600

    Reply addressees: @NorseJarl

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633611281138679808

  • RT @curtdoolittle: @lindaserg No. IQ is IQ. A general measure of neural responsi

    RT @curtdoolittle: @lindaserg No. IQ is IQ. A general measure of neural responsiveness. Let me help you: While we are both an admixture in…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 16:09:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633500120003100674

  • SLIDE DECK ON THE ‘REAL’ RU ECONOMY Sonnenfeld’s slide deck on the REAL state of

    SLIDE DECK ON THE ‘REAL’ RU ECONOMY
    Sonnenfeld’s slide deck on the REAL state of the Russian economy. Tip: the IMF is ‘making it up’. And all the talking heads are relying on the IMF reports when they claim the sanctions aren’t working.

    My take: RU has food, energy, very low… https://twitter.com/JeffSonnenfeld/status/1633483143888994304 https://t.co/4A7srMyB2M


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 15:45:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633494199264763905

  • (All: Surprised this morning when I heard a news channel state that at least the

    (All: Surprised this morning when I heard a news channel state that at least the IMF could have TOLD us they had no reliable data. Instead, they sought to preserve their pretense of neutrality by saying nothing. So we listened to month after month of talking heads quote the IMF…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 15:26:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633489400876154880

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633487236086857729

  • Our GDP FIgures are relatively meaningless and most economists understand that i

    Our GDP FIgures are relatively meaningless and most economists understand that it’s just ‘best we can do’ as a global approximate set of weights and measures.

    Now, for forty years or so I”ve been complaining about the Accounting profession because between lenders and the government, and standard accounting practices, ‘information is laundered from the money’ as it passes through the organization. And the reason is that its more work to ‘account properly’, and more work to find errors if you do account properly.

    So I want a cash, operating, financial(asset changes), ebitda, and interest, taxes, and finally net representation of any business so that I don’t have to deconstruct it myself. And I want to see P&L’s and Balance sheets monthly so that I don’t have to have the memory of an elephant. (in services I want numbers weekly). We’ve (my team) generally works on a six week window so that we react quickly. Some companies can’t put their numbers out within that time. (I built software so that I see everything in real time. Something that’sthe envy of any ceo in any business.)

    Now, for the public sector, it’s both a matter of laundering information from money (and laundering money), but worse, we don’t really keep a balance sheet. And if we did we don’t include the CAPITAL of every kind on it. Which would include every kind of human capital, resource capital, infrastructure capital, and every other demonstrated interest.

    Now, we should separate strategic industries from non. And production from non. etc, so that we know when we are losing production capacity and shifting it to financial capacity, and creating an economic imbalance.

    And just as in business, moving assets around can mask losses, in public sector accounting, not only is debt a problem but BURNING DOWN CAPITAL is an extraordinary problem.

    Now, you don’t know this but our organization’s software will eventually do this. But that’s going to take millions more investment to do it.

    Why would a government resist it?

    That much transparency prevents lying.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-07 22:52:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633239297938673669