Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • (Diary) Ruminations: Brad and I lamenting that it will likely be a generation be

    (Diary)
    Ruminations: Brad and I lamenting that it will likely be a generation before our innovation in unification is widely understood and applied. For example, philosophy is as ‘over’ as theology. Science is demoted to the previous position of philosophy an empirical discipline. Operationalism now unifies what was science with the structure of the universe’s behavior itself. And our minds adapted to that universe as a consequence. And all disciplines are merely grammars of calculation given the history of man’s ignorance of unification.
    Now, there is no way for anyone other than those deeply involved in our work to grasp this isn’t nonsense. But it’s not nonsense. And teh demonstrated improvement in thought of our team is obvious and measurable difference. If you want to increase your demonstrated intelligence by a standard deviation you can take a few years and master our work. If you use AIs to facilitate the application of our methodology then you will accelerate that time frame.
    I may have worked for decades to produce this work that is now approximating release as books, an AI, and an application platform, and eventually a Tutor. But in the end it was all just so that I could be understood, and helped people by sharing that understanding.
    Why does it matter most? No more lies. No more lies. No more political, economics, scientific, philosophical, ideological, or theological lies.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-23 23:58:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2036231173186396221

  • (NLI Humor) Curt: “See this video about faster than light communication…” Mart

    (NLI Humor)

    Curt: “See this video about faster than light communication…”

    Martin: “I can’t even get behind that at this point because I know it would immediately turn into faster than light virtue-signalling.”

    Ouch 😉

    (cc
    @AutistocratMS
    )

    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-21 23:17:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2035496146614005938

  • Sabine Hossenfelder Fixes Physics 😉 (A woman in science that really, really, ma

    Sabine Hossenfelder Fixes Physics 😉
    (A woman in science that really, really, matters.)

    The first physicist to explain what’s wrong with physics, our understanding of it, and why, and largely what to do about it.
    Please have a watch, It’s worth it. Simple, clear, and direct as she always is.

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=B7Pc0LQHu38…

    I my own work I came to the same conclusion but I can’t warranty it as other than a logical analysis of how humans engage in ignorance error bias and deceit – even for the best of reasons. Since I spend so much time cataloging human error I tend to see it whenever its present.
    In physics that error is what we call ‘mathiness’ in economics, idealism in philosophy, and the confusion that Einstein was describing light and perception not physical bodies independent of them in our general interpretation.
    Now if we can just get to the point where space is a medium, and that there is at least one or two layers beyond the quantum background (that medium) and figure out how to conduct experiments with it, then we might get somewhere. 😉

    Thanks to Sabine for her work.
    The value of the german mind at work. 😉

    cc:
    @skdh

    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-21 13:29:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2035347953444102197

  • Eric Just to counter-signal a bit: I don’t think about ‘who’. From my vantage po

    Eric
    Just to counter-signal a bit:
    I don’t think about ‘who’. From my vantage point, there aren’t any meaningful visionaries, just a lot of people seeking marginal differences in the innovation provided by chips and the attention insight. Instead I see a great deal of oversaturation of technological technique, a trivial understanding of neuroscience or an operational model of the brain, almost no grasp of epistemology, and a pursuit of ‘safety’ that is embedding 20th century normativity and ideology in the models so deeply, that it all but prohibits the production of anything truthful and useful beyond ‘worker assistance’.
    Thanks for all you do.
    You’re always a voice worth listening to.
    Cheers
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-17 00:31:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2033702647262490647

  • The academic process consists much more of indoctrination than it does empirical

    The academic process consists much more of indoctrination than it does empirical resolution of differences independent of doctrine – otherwise there would be no controversy over what was said or what was investigated.

    At present
    a) no use of research to fund activists, political activism, whether in the academy, in the non-commercial sector, or in the commercial sector as a means of funding activism.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-14 19:45:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2032905948898144605

  • REFORMING THE “CANCELLED” GRANT SYSTEM Restructure the grant request to be free

    REFORMING THE “CANCELLED” GRANT SYSTEM
    Restructure the grant request to be free of DEI dogma. Re-apply. They have a mission. They are pursuing their mission. It’s not that complicated. They’re irradicating DEI from the government, and eradicating funding of leftist causes through the grant system.

    Deal with it. It’s not rocket science. If your science doesn’t pass those hurdles then it’s not science it’s use of public funds for political purposes, propaganda and ideology parading as science.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-14 18:35:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2032888351435665413

  • Peter, (all); I disagree with the optimism. (a) our primary constraints at prese

    Peter, (all);
    I disagree with the optimism.
    (a) our primary constraints at present are the capacity to conduct tests that produce the information necessary for innovation.
    (b) our secondary constraints are the limit of human permutability (modeling) because of irreducibility of chemical, biochemical, biological, systems.
    (c) Our third constraint is the resistance of humans who have made investment and malinvestment in disciplines vs the population who has not or cannot.
    d) Our primary disadvantage is that siloing produces all sorts of negative externalities because of the inability to identify patterns across disciplines.
    e) Our primary advantage from AI is presently discovery of interstitial opportunity given the siloing of disciplines in order to ‘fit’ reasoning into a domain accessible to human cognition.
    I know in my case I had to master all the disciplines of high dimensionality and high closure (language, logic, neuroscience, economics, law, comparative civilization,) before I saw the failings of mathematics in particular and programming less so, and formal logic more so as the result of low dimensionality low closure – meaning low reducibility.
    So IQ: Not so much. Its value is limited to available information and the structure of that information. So AI? AI’s current advantage is associative breadth and depth despite it’s incapacity for innovative prediction other than by unregulated hallucination.
    So AI’s will expand the interstitial (inter-discipline) knowledge by discovery and application of patterns.
    But at some near point those discoveries will run out (be exhausted) for the same reason we have exhuasted the innovations of a century ago in physics most visibly, but in all sciences as well.
    Unfortunately, the constructivist and performative revolutions only partly succeeded, and unfortunately ‘philosophy’ went sideways and dead ended by the sixties. And while he’s still skewed more than a little, at least Wolfram has identified reducibility as the problem that cannot be overcome.
    Cheers
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-03 21:34:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2028947194750136645

  • @SethBannon RE: “Because this administration is so anti-science,” That’s nonsens

    @SethBannon

    RE: “Because this administration is so anti-science,”

    That’s nonsense. The administration is against pseudoscience and against seeking funding as rents against the population without return. And the evidence is overwhelming that waste is rampant.

    You don’t get to

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-15 01:22:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2022843876080496719

  • Yet another insight: Gary Stanley Becker really brought what the austirans sough

    Yet another insight: Gary Stanley Becker really brought what the austirans sought into scientific formalism.
    So while I appreciate Hazlitt’s Economics in one lesson, the austrian (at least misesian) attempt at economic operationalism (economics as a social science), in the hayekian (informal capital), the Rothardian (separatist, legal tradition) and Hoppeian (german free cities, property as universal commensurability), the anglo imperial or strong federal, (possibly my work as information as common capital), the culmination is the combination of economic operationalism can be found by unifying them under the beckerian supply demand illustrations which are the only visual means of reduction of economic principles.
    In my understanding we solved social science in four generations.
    That’s not bad.
    Unfortunately, we lose.
    Because economics is not practiced as a means of explanation but as a means of coercion by conflation, inflation, and fictionalization of the discipline, and in particular the fictionalism of mathematical reduction as a means of obscuring and deceiving

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-09 20:32:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2020959044048126114

  • RE: –“Why Modern Economics Is Built on a Lie w/ Bob Murphy”– See: https:// you

    RE: –“Why Modern Economics Is Built on a Lie w/ Bob Murphy”–
    See:
    https://
    youtube.com/watch?v=hYtf9O
    p3poA
    …

    Bob is pretty much always right. I’ll try to clarify:
    a) Economics consist of high causal density.
    b) Economic variables vary constantly in time.
    c) Therefore economics is limited in its reducibility (Reducibility: {operational, algorithmic, mathematic, categorical, identity, naturalism, realism})
    d) Therefore economics is more post-hoc descriptive than ex-ante predictive. (ergo: predictability is a property of reducibility, the lower the reducibility the more limited to descriptive.)
    e) Therefore we can construct general rules of descriptive economics even if we are limited in general rules of predictive economics.
    f) We can discuss economics in the same realm as any other science using operationaism and empiricism as long as we realize that the limit of reducibility is using natural indices (Labels) rather than cardinal (Numbers).
    There is no need to carry such rules further into philosophical rationalism – it devolves into an analysis of language not cause and consequence. This was a mistake of the early 20th. Mises did not realize he had discovered operationalism in physics at the same time that operationalism (under various labels) was discovered in physics and mathematics. But he was captured by rationalism. Philosophy had not yet reached the dead end it had by the 1960s.
    g) So just as euclidean geometry is a system of measurement for human scale, and fails and post-human-scale, economic rationalism is a system of measurement for human scale and fails at post-human scale.
    h) Bob’s narrative of the comparison with geometry vs its limits, or Gödel’s theorem (which is a very limited arithmetic and so overused example) and its limits, is correct. All systems have limits. All systems must only account for closure within its limits.
    The problem austrians face with the apriori is an unnecessary abstraction that does not improve anything that cannot be stated in scientific prose if we understand reducibility and indexability as I’ve stated here.
    So it is better to attempt a formalism in rationalism (set theory) than cardinality, but then it is better to adopt a formalism in operationalism than rationalism. And we can leave the archaic reasoning of our ancestors behind.
    i) All language constitutes a system of measurements. The question is only the precision given the demands of the context we wish to measure.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    NLI

    cc:
    @BobMurphyEcon

    @RobertBreedlove

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-09 19:55:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2020949790750830901