Theme: Operationalism

  • When Scalia says ‘there no right or wrong answers’ he means ‘the question is not

    When Scalia says ‘there no right or wrong answers’ he means ‘the question is not decidable from the information available alone”. In P law we state this operationally. But we have to state that in limit terms so the judge (legislators and the people) can understand it.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-01-08 03:01:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1347377788500783106

  • Instead, I’ll teach you the difference between set and operational logic, betwee

    Instead, I’ll teach you the difference between set and operational logic, between mathematics and computation, and the formal logic of language and the behavioral sciences, and the strict construction of law.

    But one needs ~140 and you don’t appear to be near that range.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-01-03 01:58:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1345550048566915072

    Reply addressees: @mikebabcock

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1345548432350576641

  • This fellow is a political hack, a media phenomenon, exhausting his moment of fa

    This fellow is a political hack, a media phenomenon, exhausting his moment of fame, and anything but scientists. Either you have operationalized explanations of statistics showing areas of inclusion and exclusion or you don’t. He doesn’t. Scientists do.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-12-29 02:14:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1343742200228753408

    Reply addressees: @BreitbartNews

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1343741659427835905

  • MATHEMATICS AND LOGIC THEN: All non-operational grammars produce holes. All oper

    MATHEMATICS AND LOGIC THEN:
    All non-operational grammars produce holes.
    All operational grammars are limited to possible operations.
    But can express all possibilities in the grammar.
    There is no end to complexity so no grammar, even one that can evolve, is universally complete.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-12-28 18:08:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1343619768532807681

  • And as such we see Weber’s insight into ideal types, the future of all instituti

    And as such we see Weber’s insight into ideal types, the future of all institutions as reduced to calculation, and the emergence of the computational, the operational, accountability, and therefore realism, replacing the previous generations of human thought. https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1343581775008845826

  • MATH: The difference is that we humans can always imagine what sequence of ratio

    MATH: The difference is that we humans can always imagine what sequence of rational and possible operations are possible even though the combinations are vast. In physics we have some hints (vectors, triangles) but we are stuck with permuting trial and error (‘Branchial space”) https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1343287081662033926

  • MATH: math is alienating for most because it’s not described operationally (scie

    MATH: math is alienating for most because it’s not described operationally (scientifically) when it is in fact a simple discipline with an ever-increasing set of tools for describing constant relations with increasing dimensions of cause, and increasing dimensions of measurement.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-12-27 19:26:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1343277007153606658

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1343239529910722562


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    MATH: Mathematics consists of a paradigm, vocabulary, grammar, and logic of ordinal names expressed in positional naming; is consistent b/c ordinal-positional names are (a) unique (b) have only one property (order) as ratio; and therefore can describe ALL constant relations.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1343239529910722562

  • On Richard Dawkins vs Brett Weinstein

    FORMAL PROBLEM 1) A mathematical model is a general rule, necessarily statistical, and is not an operational (causally complete) model – we fail to understand the limits of mathematics as we increase precision. (mathematical descriptions are invariably generalizations, and at the point of marginal difference, algorithmic simulations must replace mathematical calculations) 2) Mathematical models rely on generalizations that discount causal influences that are marginally indifferent UNTIL they are no longer marginally indifferent. (models require more information at scale) 3) There must exist three dimensions (competitive axis) in order to form a competitive evolutionary equilibrium. (choice must exist) DISCUSSIONS 1) Peacock Tail. Why Is That? Because nature can’t calculate a maximum expression of fitness without a competing axis of fitness. Conditions must change. 2) Genes are modified by other genes, so that fitness in youth and death in age is likely to survive, so the rest is. This is offset by intergenerational caretaking and knowledge transfer, making grandparents the end value. 3) Weinstein’s “It’s not for me” and “selfish replicators” is, in fact, a genetic expression specifically because we see the masculine european evolutionary Dawkins and the feminine Semitic devolutionary in Weinstein – reflecting our group evolutionary strategies, and the european and Jewish specialization in male vs female reproductive strategies. This is why Europeans (masculine eugenic quality) and european jews (feminine dysgenic quantity) serve as the intellectual leadership in the world, at least under democracy where these differences are enabled, vs the rest of the world, particularly China, maintains the masculine competitive evolutionary demonstrating at the civilizational level why there are no feminine civilizations and why Abrahamic (Semitic) civilizations devolved. 4) Dawkins’ “this is not Darwinism, its not helpful to couch this in Darwinian terms”. Weinstein is using pilpul and critique (the Abrahamic method of deceit) to seek opportunity for weakness despite its devolutionary consequences. He’s not talking about evolution. He’s talking politics. And he’s advocating for a political wing (leftism) not for evolution. In fact he’s arguing for devolution. In other words, Dawkins is disambiguating in search for truth and Weinstein is conflating to create ambiguity, in order to advance a political bias (that’s actually bad). 5) Genocide: Genocide is the most effective and determinant evolutionary behavior in history. That’s an unpleasant truth. (Hybridization is also genocide.) it won’t go away. it will simply be necessary or not, or useful or not. 6) FWIW: european history is a battle between the Mediterranean > Christian > supernatural > feminine > Latin > french south and the continental > empirical > masculine > germanic north, and the french catholic Latin persistence of the feminine Semitic authoritarian strategy attempt to destroy the germanic rational-legal holy roman empire wherein the Prussians restored the european tradition. The jews and the french and the germanic and protestants continue an ancestral conflict and it’s rather obvious in retrospect that the enemy of human civilization is the feminine. 7) Eusocial upward redistribution (he’s referring to priesthood vs Jewish rabbinical method). These are differences in group use of capital. This is why I argue that economics is a better language than biology as soon as we hit the agrarian age. Catholics produce corruption. 8) Weinstein is trying to justify Judaism and Dawkins is trying to state science. Which is, in fact, the difference between european masculine aristocratic and Jewish feminine communist group strategies. (which is fascinating). 😉    

  • On Richard Dawkins vs Brett Weinstein

    FORMAL PROBLEM 1) A mathematical model is a general rule, necessarily statistical, and is not an operational (causally complete) model – we fail to understand the limits of mathematics as we increase precision. (mathematical descriptions are invariably generalizations, and at the point of marginal difference, algorithmic simulations must replace mathematical calculations) 2) Mathematical models rely on generalizations that discount causal influences that are marginally indifferent UNTIL they are no longer marginally indifferent. (models require more information at scale) 3) There must exist three dimensions (competitive axis) in order to form a competitive evolutionary equilibrium. (choice must exist) DISCUSSIONS 1) Peacock Tail. Why Is That? Because nature can’t calculate a maximum expression of fitness without a competing axis of fitness. Conditions must change. 2) Genes are modified by other genes, so that fitness in youth and death in age is likely to survive, so the rest is. This is offset by intergenerational caretaking and knowledge transfer, making grandparents the end value. 3) Weinstein’s “It’s not for me” and “selfish replicators” is, in fact, a genetic expression specifically because we see the masculine european evolutionary Dawkins and the feminine Semitic devolutionary in Weinstein – reflecting our group evolutionary strategies, and the european and Jewish specialization in male vs female reproductive strategies. This is why Europeans (masculine eugenic quality) and european jews (feminine dysgenic quantity) serve as the intellectual leadership in the world, at least under democracy where these differences are enabled, vs the rest of the world, particularly China, maintains the masculine competitive evolutionary demonstrating at the civilizational level why there are no feminine civilizations and why Abrahamic (Semitic) civilizations devolved. 4) Dawkins’ “this is not Darwinism, its not helpful to couch this in Darwinian terms”. Weinstein is using pilpul and critique (the Abrahamic method of deceit) to seek opportunity for weakness despite its devolutionary consequences. He’s not talking about evolution. He’s talking politics. And he’s advocating for a political wing (leftism) not for evolution. In fact he’s arguing for devolution. In other words, Dawkins is disambiguating in search for truth and Weinstein is conflating to create ambiguity, in order to advance a political bias (that’s actually bad). 5) Genocide: Genocide is the most effective and determinant evolutionary behavior in history. That’s an unpleasant truth. (Hybridization is also genocide.) it won’t go away. it will simply be necessary or not, or useful or not. 6) FWIW: european history is a battle between the Mediterranean > Christian > supernatural > feminine > Latin > french south and the continental > empirical > masculine > germanic north, and the french catholic Latin persistence of the feminine Semitic authoritarian strategy attempt to destroy the germanic rational-legal holy roman empire wherein the Prussians restored the european tradition. The jews and the french and the germanic and protestants continue an ancestral conflict and it’s rather obvious in retrospect that the enemy of human civilization is the feminine. 7) Eusocial upward redistribution (he’s referring to priesthood vs Jewish rabbinical method). These are differences in group use of capital. This is why I argue that economics is a better language than biology as soon as we hit the agrarian age. Catholics produce corruption. 8) Weinstein is trying to justify Judaism and Dawkins is trying to state science. Which is, in fact, the difference between european masculine aristocratic and Jewish feminine communist group strategies. (which is fascinating). 😉    

  • Eric: Restate that operationally (scientifically) instead of mathematically (pla

    Eric: Restate that operationally (scientifically) instead of mathematically (platonically).

    All: it seems impossible with the information we can obtain to deduce the fundamental geometry. This is why wolfram’s constructivist method has more promise (as we just saw in proteins).


    Source date (UTC): 2020-12-23 21:23:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1341857049869729798

    Reply addressees: @EricRWeinstein

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1341833816424370176