Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • PROBLEM: ADAPTING TO THE UNIFICATION OF THE SCIENCES (our resistance to the form

    PROBLEM: ADAPTING TO THE UNIFICATION OF THE SCIENCES
    (our resistance to the formalization of the behavioral sciences)

    FWIW: One of the problems we (all) face is that people don’t expect to understand the physical sciences but oddly enough, expect to understand the behavioral, ethical, and moral sciences of cooperation and dispute resolution. Why? It’s more tangible to us. Why? It’s the means we use to pretend our negotiating position (justification) of our biases is moral rather than within the limits of what is moral without prosecution and retaliation. 😉

    So, just as we have paid the high cost to transition populations to scientific understanding in the physical world – and the profound returns – we will now have to pay the high cost of transitioning populations to the scientific understanding of the behavioral and evolutionary world – to obtain the even greater profound returns.

    So, in that sense, I expect even greater resistance than Socrates, Aristotle, Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin, because the progress of science is moving from producing decidability in that which is abstract to the individual, to that which is tangible to his beliefs, to that which is tangible to his display word and deed – and eliminates one’s ability to engage in magical thinking as a means of sedation.

    So I expect far greater resistance to my work than we saw even to Darwin’s. In fact, the post-war ideological warfare consists almost entirely of a counter-enlightenment against the Darwinian explanation for nearly all of existence. So we are still in the throws of denial of Darwin 170 years later. I would expect the same people on the right and left who resist the Darwinian revolution to resist this completion of the unification of the sciences – and for the same reasons.

    Institutions lag. Humans change only when the people who have malinvested in a previous set of errors, die off, and give opportunities to those who invest in something less erroneous. We can thank Kuhn for that uncomfortable truth.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-20 05:58:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627548243612561408

  • Good, strong, skeptical take. Minimum Understanding: 1. the work (a) unifies the

    Good, strong, skeptical take.

    Minimum Understanding:
    1. the work (a) unifies the sciences in a single universally commensurable formal, operational, constructive logic of falsification (b) produces a formal logic of decidability (c) applied to law to create a formal and scientific logic of cooperation and consequently a formal scientific logic vocabulary and grammar of law.
    2. This work applied to formalize empirical common law (negative) and empirically concurrent legislation (positive). then applied to the constitution, amendments, policy reforms. (listed elsewhere in some detail)
    3. Net result is the extension of fraud and protections from commercial production of private goods, services, and information, to political production of commons whether in goods, services, and information. The immediate result is the suppression of the means of baiting into hazard by false promise (fraud) that by social or political construction we can violate the laws of the universe.
    4. This completes the Wilsonian synthesis of the formal (logical), physical, behavioral, and evolutionary sciences, providing universal falsifiability and decidability, completing the natural law program from Aristotle to the present.
    5. To complete this project requires (a) a moral license to demand change (b) a solution to the crisis in a set of morally justifiable demands for change (c) an organized plan of transition (c) demand for restitution, punishment, and prevention (d) an undeniable threat of force if thse moral demands aren’t met: in other words, a repetition of the magna carta, and the founders, by a common law suit against the state for the redress of grievances presented to the state.
    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-20 04:15:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627522187178528770

  • WHAT POLITICAL WING IS ‘SMARTER’? (the nonsense continues) I’ve spent three deca

    WHAT POLITICAL WING IS ‘SMARTER’?
    (the nonsense continues)

    I’ve spent three decades on this question, and nothing has changed.

    1) The IQ presumption in all research I know of is due to using the proxy of degrees. This gives a bias to the ‘nonsense degrees’ favored by women and librals. And it discounts the disutility of paying for nonsense degrees to males and conservatives. In other words, teachers, social workers, psychology, sociology, ‘studies’, language and history etc, are the lowest paid, least capable students that still obtain college degrees.

    2) Historically “Liberals are smarter than conservatives, and republicans are smarter than democrats, and libertarians are the smartest of all.” The reason is group size and group distribution. Just as women are more narrowly distributed than men, liberals are mor narrowly distributed that conservatives.

    3) The difference between left and right is cognitively female, empathizing, verbal, in time, consuming vs cognitively male, systematizing, operational, over-time, and capitalizing. We are in an era where verbal facility is more rewarded than at any previous time in history. (for a while yet). We are approaching the era where verbal facility will be as automated as design and production has been automated.

    So the difference between the factions is determined largely by the first-past-the-post election model, and who has captured what factions of the middle, working, laboring, and out-of-sight classes.

    I would venture that the failure of the west to resist the new pseudoscientific religions of the postwar era is due to the replacement of the managerial class of government by the rise of credentialism in the academy (theoretical) and the decline of meritocracy in military and industrial achievement (empirical).

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-19 21:31:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627420732417359872

  • As you mean it, of course I’d agree. As necessary, I wish it were true. It’s not

    As you mean it, of course I’d agree.
    As necessary, I wish it were true. It’s not.
    All language consists of a stream of measurements resulting in a continuous reduction of ambiguity.
    All disciplines require domain-specific vocabulary.
    Universal commensurability across all domains requires we disambiguate sets of domain-specific vocabulary.
    The result is a vocabulary that consists of unambiguous measurements across all domains.
    This is necessary, if we are trying to construct a science that can identify describe, explain and as a consequence prevent the mass production of lying that has plagued the industrial age.
    So just as you must learn to read, must learn mathematics, must learn physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, economics, law et al, the solution to matters of ethics and politics, psychological and social science, requires learning terms that prevent the rapid expansion of not only lying but pseudoscience.
    This is the research and development that our organization performs.
    And it’s for moral ends for the benefit of all.
    -Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-19 06:37:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627195662566662144

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627190302715830274

  • Bad test criteria

    Bad test criteria.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-19 04:55:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627170036866600961

    Reply addressees: @Misanthrope_Nu

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627165665051246593

  • Well, you know, I’m in the business of testimony. I can’t testify to that (you c

    Well, you know, I’m in the business of testimony. I can’t testify to that (you can’t either). We can predict that as one of the many outcomes in a field of possibilities. We can trust our judgment or not, but that’s not making a truth claim about the world – just you. 😉

    People said the paper currency wouldn’t work either. And the paper currency isn’t backed. Digital fiat currency doesn’t even exist as paper. It’s just debt on a hierarchy of ledgers.

    So I stick to criticizing the risks that are unstated or understated and assume it will evolve into something other than what it is, simply because the utility of the ledger is better than any method or tech we have today.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-17 17:00:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626627746926325760

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626626326516858888

  • Dear Lord, Professor, Saint @elonmusk ;), (All) Yes, we can build a TruthGPT. Ye

    Dear Lord, Professor, Saint @elonmusk ;), (All)

    Yes, we can build a TruthGPT.
    Yes, I know how. I’m a nerd. 😉
    You have no reason to believe me.
    People who follow my work do.
    I had to solve the Truth problem for an AI that could test law, constitution, legislation, regulation, and speech for truthfulness.

    I have too much on my plate reforming law for the same reason (Truth, Possibility, Legality, Legitimacy), to start another company to produce on an AI – though it’s something I’ve worked on and planned for years.

    TSLA could easily produce a TruthAI, and Twitter could use and AI produced by TSLA. The world would benefit from a TruthAI more than any technology… well…, other than a safe battery with N-times the energy density of gasoline. 😉

    For anyone interested:

    1. The embodiment that TSLA uses for cars and robots is necessary for world modeling, and world modeling is necessary for categorization (identification) from context.

    2. Route Finding in vehicles and robots is necessary for Recursive Wayfinding (thinking and problem-solving.)

    3. Novelty Detection and World Modeling combined with Way Finding are necessary for episodic memory. Memories favor novelties.

    4. Object, Space, and Background classification, combined with episodes (contexts) are necessary for sufficient disambiguation to determine ‘ownership’ and predictions.

    5. If you study linguistics you quickly realize that universal morality is embedded in all our languages (particularly English because it’s a high-precision low-context language) in the form of permission to act on a person, object, space, class, etc.

    6 So, moral AI that respects life and demonstrated interest (property) and even negotiates over control and transfer of interest is pretty simple.

    7. The next higher-order problem then is one of speech (truth). While justificationary truth is impossible (yes really) survival of falsification is possible (yes really).

    8. There is one simple logic to the universe at all scales that provides us with the opportunity for a constructive falsificationary logic. (That was the hard part)

    9. The hard bit for the next generation to swallow, is that there is a relatively simple set of criteria for *universal falsification of statements* and a *universally commensurable paradigm, grammar, vocabulary, logic, and syntax* – Yes really.

    When written or spoken language using this ‘grammar’ looks and sounds like a bit tedious form of ordinary language. And this tedious form can be reduced to ordinary language on output.

    In other words, we can and have produced a non-cardinal, ordinal, qualitative, geometry of language that can test the possibility of any speech or text’s testifiability (truth). And we can and have produced a rule set (checklist) for Truthful(testifiable), ethical(direct), and moral(indirect) questions.

    THE PLAYERS TODAY AND WHY TSLA MATTERS

    TSLA vs Google vs OpenAI use three different models. OpenAi is the simplest, Google’s a bit more challenging, and TSLA’s the most difficult.

    Now, we require TSLA’s world model to create an AI that can continuously recursively and in real-time produce truth tests.

    And we need eventually neuromorphic hardware (many tiny simple processors with a bit of local memory) to circumvent the backpropagation cost problem (and the alternatives, and evolve closer to real-time learning. (FWIW recent innovations in solving the cost problem has been exciting and is gaining popularity – thanks to one of the fathers of the field.)

    The combination of local truth testing of tangible questions and escalation to distant central truth testing for increasingly abstract questions is the holy grail of imitating the human mind and its use of collective minds as a market for knowledge and decisions.

    (BTW: Thanks #TwitterDev for long-form tweets. It’s finally possible to inform with Twitter instead of just virtue signal and generate conflict by promoting viscous cycles of moral outrage for dopamine junkies. 😉 )

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-17 16:11:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626615439638798337

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626533667408596992

  • In mathematics, the Tilde means “approximately’

    In mathematics, the Tilde means “approximately’.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-16 05:06:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626085588242690050

    Reply addressees: @tysonmaly

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626084138741538817

  • Obvious. Bias training has no impact. Stereotypes are the most accurate measure

    Obvious. Bias training has no impact.
    Stereotypes are the most accurate measure in social science. No amount of ‘diversity, bias, sensitivity’ training will counter the evidence observed in reality on a daily basis. https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1620999978666827776

  • Q: HOW DO YOU USE THE TERM “GRAMMARS”? I have complex reasons for doing this, th

    Q: HOW DO YOU USE THE TERM “GRAMMARS”?
    I have complex reasons for doing this, that involve explaining the physical and biological origins of language and using language to unify the sciences. But that’s not important at the moment.

    1. I use ‘Grammar’ in the conventional sense.
    2. I use ‘Grammars’ in a novel sense, of the permissible dimensions of reference, the vocabulary, logic, and syntax of a paradigm WITHIN a language.
    3. This is an oversimplified chart using a simple hierarchy to illustrate what is a more complex set of relationships:

    UNIVERSAL TO PARTICULAR GRAMMARS:
    Human Sense, Perception, Integration, Autoassociation, Prediction
    Human Memory
    Human Attention
    Human Recursion
    Human Wayfinding
    … Human Grammatical Capacity
    … … Universal Grammar (the rule of continuous recursive disambiguation)
    … … … Languages
    … … … … Grammar of a Langauge (rules of disambiguation)
    … … … … … Phonology (sounds)
    … … … … … Morphology (words)
    … … … … … Syntax (organization of words)
    … … … … … Semantics (meaning)
    … … … … … … Paradigms (permissible dimensions)
    … … … … … … Metaphysics (presumptions)
    … … … … … … … Logic of a Paradigm
    … … … … … … … Vocabulary of a Paradigm
    … … … … … … … Grammar of a Paradigms
    … … … … … … … Syntax (organization) of a Paradigm

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-16 01:16:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626027644276858880

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626021523956850688