Theme: Science

  • ) Sure but what’s the difference between science, natural law, philosophy, and m

    🙂 Sure but what’s the difference between science, natural law, philosophy, and morality?

    There shouldn’t be any – because otherwise it’s false? :0


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-27 00:17:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673485750266994688

    Reply addressees: @SmoothBrain109

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673481946733617154

  • Q: Curt: Could you elaborate on the “accumulation in physical systems”?” Sure. A

    Q: Curt: Could you elaborate on the “accumulation in physical systems”?”

    Sure. And a bit more… 😉
    The process of evolutionary computation is the same whether in physics, biology, or sentient life.

    1. Accumulation (in physical systems) – ‘Accidental Organization’ The universe can’t choose – so it’s deterministic in the organization of energy (waves, protoparticles, particles, elements, molecules) it’s accidental.

    2. Acquisition (in living systems) – ‘Biologically Organized”. Life has “learned” by trial and error in genetics some organization to assist in energy capture

    3. Cooperation (in sentient or conscious systems) – “voluntarily organized”. Sentient life has learned using genetics by trial and error in evolution, and in memory in its experience, when cooperation is beneficial and when it is not.

    So we use Accumulation, Acquisition, Cooperation for the three stages in the hierarchy of complexity that increases the chance of capture of increases in energy in order to persist whatever organization they rely on for that energy capture: accident, organization, or volition.

    We will ‘sometimes’ classify that three-step sequence of accumulation, acquisition, and cooperation using the anthropocentric term “Cooperation” to help people frame the universe as ‘everything cooperating’ even though cooperation requires volition, and neither inanimate matter, nor simple life has any ability to ‘choose’, so it can’t choose to cooperate. 😉

    So we see the history of evolutionary computation as increases in the chances of the capture of increasingly niche energy for the persistence of whatever organization (physical, biological, neurological) that persists that organization. 😉

    Dimensions:
    1. Energy (+)(=)(-) (potential)
    Think Noun -> Inventory. Point

    2. Accumulation (Storage, Transformation, or Consumption) (+)(to store), (+/-/=) to transform, or (-)(to use, dispose, or consume).
    Think Verb -> Operation, Action. Line

    3. Organization (matter,charge) (=)
    Think Agreement, Phrase -> Transaction. Plane.

    4. Scale: Complexity (accumulation(physical), acquisition(biological), cooperation (neurological))
    Think Phrase, Sentence, Story -> Ledger, Journal. Object

    5. Consequence: (evolutionary survival)
    Think Novel or Encyclopedia -> P&L, Balance Sheet. Object Over Time

    And the reason for this set of dimensions is to suggest to those who might be able to see the pattern:
    That language, and all our paradigms, our methodologies, and all our disciplines are just a set of measurements, that like physics, biology, and cooperation, follow one very simple trivial rule:

    “The ternary logic(+,=,-) of evolutionary computation of persistence in the defeat of entropy, by a process of continuous disambiguation of disorder into hierarchies of order.”

    That is why the first rule of grammar, is ‘the continuous recursive disambiguation of disorder into order resulting in ‘meaning’ (agreement) – or not. 😉

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Reply addressees: @FlorianRose_


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-26 22:48:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673463374070333440

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673450176734965760

  • OK. This innovation was genius. It’s done in science and industry. But first tim

    OK. This innovation was genius. It’s done in science and industry. But first time I’ve seen it applied to solve a pet problem. Thank you. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-26 13:39:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673325041566531585

    Reply addressees: @GarloGenius

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1667112542521692161

  • Respectfully, you are incorrect, Richard. Science is the product of Western man

    Respectfully, you are incorrect, Richard.
    Science is the product of Western man because it evolved exclusively from the application of our law, which formed on the steppe.
    (Yes, really)
    Combine metalworking with Steppe economics and politics and then convert it to settled agrarianism, and we get unique Western thought: empirical.
    Because that’s all that’s possible when your law prohibits authority (among the men who fight) thereby requiring a means of decidability.
    So any civilization may adopt any technology. But the intersection of civilizational differences in thought (premise, bias, logic) is difficult to overcome, and we still see it in the world differences in publication quality without indoctrination into scientific thought.
    Why?
    Science consists of the production of testimony. And Only Europeans – at least until the marxist to woke sequence – practice truth before face.
    And that is a very rare legalistic behavior for a general population.
    And it’s under assault in the West.
    -Cheers.

    Reply addressees: @RichardDawkins


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-26 13:29:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673322471074807808

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673307599444344838

  • Yes and as of the last decade we know why the existence of all is deterministic.

    Yes and as of the last decade we know why the existence of all is deterministic. And that answer is simple, boring, and obvious.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-26 13:26:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673321805577170944

    Reply addressees: @ZahraaAlm313 @RichardDawkins

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673313663854477313

  • FWIW: The researchers are only stating that it’s possible that the virus escaped

    FWIW:
    The researchers are only stating that it’s possible that the virus escaped china earlier than tought, not that it didn’t occur in the Wuhan Lab and spread by the wetmarket.
    This is partly because it spread from china earlier and more seriously in Italy, so may have spread…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-25 14:49:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1672980312924585984

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1672977689748156416

  • No. IQ is the most reliable metric we have in all of behavioral science, and is

    No. IQ is the most reliable metric we have in all of behavioral science, and is second only to stereotypes in social science, and it is the least malleable and produces the most accurate lifetime prediction, whether for individuals groups, countries, civilizations, and races. Period. End of story. No more pseudoscience. No more lies.
    We know it’s a feminine empathic bias just as is projection, and magical thinking. But no. Get over it. It’s settled science. There is no dispute in the field. Only in consumer rags that seed therapy to the insecure. So it’s settled science (2000) are sex differences in personality and intelligence (2012), and so are race differences in personality and intelligence (2018), and there are literally NO contrary indicators or evidence anywhere at any time, despite the postwar left’s attack on Darwinian evolution and behavioral sciences, to advance the false promise of marxist equality and the demonization of the meritocratic rule of law west.

    Reply addressees: @coffeecatharine @FarajRashi93307 @_stilloriginal_


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-24 19:53:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1672694532184461312

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1672692834376495105

  • Safe title. Contradicts the report. The lab leak satisfies the criteria of “beyo

    Safe title. Contradicts the report.
    The lab leak satisfies the criteria of “beyond all reasonable doubt”. The fact that we don’t have documentation despite all the other documented leaks from that lab would only convert “beyond all reasonable doubt” to “undeniable”. Not sure why…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-24 01:33:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1672417558471778305

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1672411990919184389

  • One of the challenges we have noted while enumerating the first principles of be

    One of the challenges we have noted while enumerating the first principles of behavioral science, is the tendency to over emphasize something we understand rather than apply exhaustive competition between first principles. so I’d suggest learning the civilizational first principles (top down), and sex differences in cognition (bottom up) too. Otherwise we all fall into the intuition to apply justification: “fitting”.

    Reply addressees: @Will_Benge


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-23 15:47:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1672270255618490371

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1672267160490770432

  • It would be necessary to eliminate all other possible causes as equal or greater

    It would be necessary to eliminate all other possible causes as equal or greater influence. There is only one cause originating with neoteny that we know of that is a probable influence and its greater pliability (lower resistance and aggresion). I dont see it holding up at scale. Culture and language are too influential. If we look at the intergenerational asian diaspora that exits their culture we only see lower aggression, higher self regulation, and lower verbal acuity, with extraordinary success while maintaining those traits. So its only manifesting lower aggression.

    Reply addressees: @Will_Benge


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-23 15:39:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1672268200334032896

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1672264474605268992