RT @curtdoolittle: @TheFlushening smart question.
In simple terms the level of technology determines the means by which to measure the beha…
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 23:54:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744507882719293658
I think I could convice you that quantitative can’t be, but operational can be a limit. For the same reasons we are discussing here. but it’s late at night and I’m still trying to figure out why my workstation is crawling around like a slug and I want to go to bed. Anther time maybe. 😉
Tip: all logics(grammars) are just language. What is expressible in any system of logic (grammar) and what is not? Once you understand this then everything we think and say is just an n-dimensional manifold of relations that are reducible to analogies to human experience.
Reply addressees: @LiminalRev @RussellJohnston @Zamicol @cryptogeni
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 04:37:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744216790245228544
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744215797621211522
The only issue is that if it can be described mathematically (a description not a causation) that does not mean it can be constructed operationally – meaning such entities cannot be brought into existence.
The counter-argument is that since all mathematical problems require some projection (reduction) to a common dimension of measurement (or set) that we may find correlations (‘meaning’) even if the construction cannot possibly be brought into being. this is, in effect, what the brain’s neurons accomplish by the process of what we call ‘inference’.
Reply addressees: @LiminalRev @RussellJohnston @Zamicol @cryptogeni
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 04:06:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744208831561814016
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744207502470750223
what is the difference between mathematics(descriptions) and computation (operations)? Why is the set of what is mathematical reducible smaller than the set of what is computationally constructable?
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 03:55:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744206211342377356
Reply addressees: @LiminalRev @RussellJohnston @Zamicol @cryptogeni
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744205190633251102
There is no contradiction with physics. You think so because you’re confusing mathematics for the purpose of description of regularities in the quantum background and the problem of predicting such regularities when we are limited to probabilities, with the formation of matter by quanta (the universe’s counting system) by the discovery of combinations of stable relations, particles, matter and the hierarchy of their combinations, yes these combinations are computable. This is why computing power is necessary for the discovery of chemical, molecular, biomolecular combinations and the remaining hieararchy of the organization of matter. It can be computed and therefore discovered, but not mathematically predicted (calculated) and even when discovered it may not be mathematically reducible, and may only be algorithmically reducible thus repeating the process of its construction. It’s also why for example bayesian accounting (what we call machine learning) has been successful of late at inference of molecular structures that are a potentnial which are then reversibly engineerd demonstrating their means of construction. They are not calculable, but they are open to calculation, it’s just extremely inefficient to work by trial and error. When we do so we compress time by modeling, just as computers compress time by modeling our own pencil and paper calculations.
I can’t be wrong by the way. Wolfram understands this problem the best I think, but he isn’t terribly good at explaining it in operational terms. Which is unfortunate. Because it helps explain the failures of the past fifty years of research in physics, how einstein and bohr encouraged that failure indirectly, and it explains why Minsky, in his introduction to computer science was adamant that computation was a novel way of thining and that it is a revolution on top of mathematics just as empiricism was on philosophy.
Reply addressees: @linasvepstas @RussellJohnston @Zamicol @cryptogeni
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 03:54:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744205845062189056
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744202496904429618
I’m an epistemologist, scientist, and operationalist.
Defining “supernatural,” “supernormal,” and “natural” as a sequence involves understanding these terms in relation to the extent to which they conform to, exceed, or deviate from established laws of nature.
Here’s a breakdown:
1. Natural
Definition: The term “natural” refers to phenomena that occur within the laws of nature and the observable universe. These are processes or events that can be explained by scientific understanding, including physics, chemistry, biology, and other natural sciences.
Characteristics: Natural phenomena are consistent with the laws of nature as we understand them. They can be observed, measured, and often predicted using scientific methods.
Examples: The growth of plants, the orbit of planets, weather patterns, and animal behavior.
2. Supernormal
Definition: “Supernormal” refers to phenomena or abilities that are beyond (or above) the typical range of human experience or scientific explanation but are not necessarily outside the realm of what could be natural. These might include extraordinary human abilities or occurrences that are rare but not inherently impossible or contradictory to natural laws.
Characteristics: Supernormal phenomena stretch the boundaries of our current understanding of the natural world but do not explicitly violate natural laws. They might be subject to scientific investigation and potential explanation.
Examples: Exceptional human memory, extreme physical endurance, unexplained recoveries from illness, or phenomena that are on the edge of scientific understanding but not entirely outside it.
3. Supernatural
Definition: The “supernatural” encompasses phenomena or entities that are believed to exist outside of and not constrained by the laws of nature. These are occurrences or beings that cannot be explained by natural laws or scientific understanding.
Characteristics: Supernatural phenomena are beyond the scope of natural laws and scientific explanation. They often involve elements of mysticism, spirituality, or divine intervention.
Examples: Miracles, deities, ghosts, and other phenomena or entities that are typically associated with religious, spiritual, or mystical contexts.
Sequence Summary
Natural → Supernormal → Supernatural: This sequence moves from phenomena that are fully explainable by science and natural laws (natural), through those that are extraordinary but potentially within the realm of an expanded scientific understanding (supernormal), to those that are considered completely outside the scope of natural laws and scientific explanation (supernatural).
Reply addressees: @dbabbitt
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-04 23:27:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743051628662472704
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743033065570488749
THE TERM PATRIARCHY IS A NONSENSE WORD
I doubt anyone who uses the term ‘patriarchy’ can:
(a) define it- precisely.
(b) operationalize it – how to institutionalize it: precisely.
(c) or explain how it means anything more than men must take responsibiilty for the private and… https://twitter.com/SerenaJB3/status/1711332843090051507
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-23 00:25:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1738355156662587788
P-LAW STYLE GUIDE
(repost for newbies)
I use a number of techniques in the text that are the product of the Popperian analytic movement in the philosophy of science. These tools are meant to reduce ‘texty’ arguments to simple sequences or what in programming are called ‘data…
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-11 00:57:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1734014596392878361
Yes. Well, again, they aren’t smart so much as search-and-summarize algorithms. Until they can predict fields, and falsify permutations within those fields by tests of operational possibility (computationally expensive) and do so recursively, (more expensive), then they can’t…
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-11 00:54:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1734013733444129150
Reply addressees: @SaitouHajime00
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1733918256526929975
I believe nothing, as I am an epistemologist, scientist and operationalist – though I am aware that in all eras there are advangages, or opportunities, made possible by geographic, demographic, technological and conceptual conditions of the moment that people with the ability to do so with the incentive to organize by intent, common interest, or pragmatic utility, knowingly or not, to exploit, and in doing so claim they are ‘doing good’ despite that their efforts produce externalities, and that those externalities often deprive people of choices they might otherwise make that would not produce those externalities. In this, there is no difference between the ages and civilizations other than the greater or lesser utility of each of the three means of human coercion. The primary problem of the age is the failure of states (other than france) to capture fiat money (central banks) so that dividends of government are preserved for the people rather than privatized. And I further understand that the monarchies should have, and would best have, been stewards of these treasuries instead of governments. I further understand that the central subsequent problem has been the introduction of women and a specific group that practices the female group strategy, and that this pairing is the only material source of western civilizational problems as the combination of finance hostile interest, and feminine interest in responsibilty evasion work their way through the institutions of cultural production – as they intended to.
Reply addressees: @BobbyBrisket
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-02 23:22:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1731091373300817921
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1731088744437223878