MORE: So, the methodology I teach is disambiguation of vocabulary into systems of ordinal measurement, by enumeration, serialization, and operationalism. This is easier in English because it’s a context free language with an vast vocabulary that can be disambiguated into values.
Source date (UTC): 2022-12-12 17:13:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1602350888211083264
Reply addressees: @Empty_America
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1601788336120598528
FWIW: (a) I believe we know what’s wrong with physics, (b) and that a classical (operational) model of the universe is available (c) and with that model we can seek whether methods of preventing mass (concentration of the quantum background). (d) w/ likely two levels more to go?
Source date (UTC): 2022-12-11 04:07:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1601790836848877568
Reply addressees: @whatifalthist
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1601435225413648384
Absolutely positively correct. Well done. 😉
And it’s why we try to teach E (no verb-to-be), promissory, and operational language.
Source date (UTC): 2022-12-08 17:06:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1600899611165487104
Reply addressees: @LMasterBW
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1600895629114630144
Um. No. I’m an epistemologist, and operational logician, where science is the means of discovering the first principles of the ‘first logic’ upon which everything in the universe depends. I apply it to law because it’s via-negativa decidable rather than via-positiva prescriptive.
Source date (UTC): 2022-12-07 22:23:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1600617055752953869
Math isn’t capable of it.
Mathematical reducibility is smaller than computational reducibility, and computational reducibility is smaller than operational reducibility.
That’s why operational prose is necessary.
It’s ‘math’ of complexity.
Source date (UTC): 2022-11-30 21:25:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1598065831874732032
Reply addressees: @Thaeus4 @SamoBurja
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1598065468862255104
I think my work is a futile exercise until I watch as a dozen young men demonstrate operational arguments from first principles, as balanced equations, including limiting parentheticals, and then I realize my work isn’t futile, but ask if there are enough of us capable of it.
Source date (UTC): 2022-11-30 17:10:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1598001586172616704
Not sure why you think what you’re saying is sensible or logical. Comparing (a) static textual analysis (statistical) vs dynamic experimental analysis (procedural). (b) it’s the difference between math and software. (c) to develop law or AI requires decomposition then tagging.
Source date (UTC): 2022-11-22 14:27:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1595061356109398016
Reply addressees: @GeorgeWallaces4 @mkerste @rmcoplon @ejdickson
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1595040622590697472
FWIW: the hard problem was converting it from moral language to ‘science’. Once we do so we can imagine ways of solving it. And that ist he purpose of science: to grant us power over nature within the limits that are possible.
Source date (UTC): 2022-11-14 00:43:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1591954962380386304
Reply addressees: @OG_Gearhound
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1591954402126200835
OK. But in the end, when operationalized, I assume you mean the proletariat, rather than the upper class, clerical class or the middle class, rule? Or are you assuming that the absence of government and universal equalitarian behavior is possible?
Source date (UTC): 2022-11-09 17:16:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1590392935925035008
Reply addressees: @ComradeChernov
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1590392151791128577
BUT… Learning to use “Operational language using disambiguation, via enumeration, serialization, operationalization into transactions in a balanced equations” is hard even for native speakers. Because, it may appear we are writing English, but it is much closer to mathematics. https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1590354071982309378
Source date (UTC): 2022-11-09 15:13:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1590361843834687490
https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1590354071982309378