Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • No I really have no idea how many people grasp the foundations of our work and h

    No I really have no idea how many people grasp the foundations of our work and how it evolves our systems of thought from (now archaic) types, sets, empiricism and mathematics (correlation) into causes, operations, construction, and computation (causality)

    I can see a future where our work replaces mathiness and ideal types, with evolutionary computation and dimensions of measurement in an equilibrium – just as philosophy replaced anthropomorphism and theology, and natural philosophy replaced philosophy, and analytic philosophy replaced continental.

    And that’s because I’ve seen the expansion of computational and ‘economic’ thinking in my lifetime.

    But it takes quite a few years (generations) for innovation to make it’s way into (our regressive) education system, into application, and finally into metaphysical presumption as part of the common dialog.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-13 15:05:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1657401651467022339

  • The goal of space? Or of energy capture and conversion in defeat of entropy, tha

    The goal of space?
    Or of energy capture and conversion in defeat of entropy, that’s achieved through field (space, scope, breadth, diversity) of resource availability?

    Sustainability = persistence vs decay.
    Simpler=less fragile due to external shocks and changes.
    Safer(positiva) is an odd term for anything in the universe, but also means less fragile (negativa).

    Your example applies, yes.

    If we construct from first principles those properties we use to describe causality are consistent across the physical, biological, sentient, and cooperative.

    It’s this consistency across domains that falsifies false, and half-truth claims that cause error, bias, or deceit by suggestion, association, inference, deduction.

    This is why we work with such precise terms in P-Law: Every word we use we define as an ordinal measure of a spectrum (dimensions), constructed from first principles that survive falsification by tests of consistency across domains, forming and equilibrium between limits, between (-)demand, (=) persistence, (+) supply, and (!=) collapse.

    It’s not obvious to readers or even those following us that everything we say is constructed from differences in charge that equilibrate sufficiently sustainable energy capture to resist decay back into the quantum background, and from there into entropy by expansion of space.

    We’re just as strictly constructing as math, but by ordinal rather than cardinal terms, specifically because cardinality isn’t a meaningful measure when there is no reducible quantity, only triangulation of more than less than equal to(marginally indifferent) and not equal to(marginally different).

    Reply addressees: @FernandoGLV1212

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-13 14:56:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1657399484576419843

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1657393450159943681

  • “COOPERATION” EVOVED BEFORE LIFE (riffing off sabine) Systems of molecules mutua

    “COOPERATION” EVOVED BEFORE LIFE
    (riffing off sabine)

    Systems of molecules mutually benefiting each other are the most likely origin of life. “Life is an inevitable consequence of a universe that’s biased to opportunistically increase complexity.”

    Our framing of this phenomenon as “cooperation” requires we distinguish between accidental interaction, physical cooperation, cellular cooperation, reproductive cooperation, productive cooperation, and voluntary cooperation, and systems of voluntary cooperation(institutions).

    We refer to that hierarchy as ‘evolutionary computation’ of persistence by the defeat of entropy through the capture and concentration of energy, producing ‘work’.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-13 14:19:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1657390006925664257

  • MUST READ THREAD (suggested by a friend) –“the activist left, not the religious

    MUST READ THREAD
    (suggested by a friend)

    –“the activist left, not the religious right, that has most vigorously sought to undermine evolution-based scientific research”–

    Furthermore, the religious right does so to create an authoritarian and immutable foundation for moral… https://twitter.com/avidseries/status/1656702691257597958

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-12 16:59:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1657067897145966592

  • No evidence to support it. But like many things we’ve learned we were wrong abou

    No evidence to support it. But like many things we’ve learned we were wrong about I can’t state it’s impossible, just lacking evidence. FWIW: it fails the test of parsimony on one hand and competitive hypothesis on the other, so it has a long way to go before it’s reasonable.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-11 22:16:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656785391939190785

    Reply addressees: @JohnDuttonTrad @OtonielFilho5 @bierlingm @gcochran99

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656782882432512002

  • Popper was very close with falsification but he couldn’t complete the project. S

    Popper was very close with falsification but he couldn’t complete the project. Same for hayek. Close but couldn’t complete it. Like I’ve said before I don’t think the concepts existed before computation. If computation had come earlier (Babbage failed) they might have. In fact the whole lost century in philosophy is probably due to Babbage’s failure or other people’s failure to grasp and generalize what he’d discovered. Instead we got ‘multiple infinities’ nonsense. 😉

    Reply addressees: @tysonmaly

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-11 19:57:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656750482616995840

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656746879483277332

  • Are anglo institutions superior to other country’s institutions? Well, while all

    Are anglo institutions superior to other country’s institutions? Well, while all scandinavian institutions are well organized, only the anglo are ‘scientific’, and the only competitor of size is germany, and germany has taken itself out of international affairs, where the UK maintains responsibility for international affairs – perhaps better than the USA.

    As far as I know this is just true, for the simple reason that anglo civ varies least from science.

    Reply addressees: @just_atweethere @nellie_popper @anneapplebaum

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-11 13:46:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656657121767727106

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656655827074453504

  • BELIEVE WHAT SCIENCE? (I deal with this every single day.) –“Around a third of

    BELIEVE WHAT SCIENCE?
    (I deal with this every single day.)

    –“Around a third of studies published in neuroscience journals, and about 24% in medical journals, are “made up or plagiarized,” according to a new paper.”–via Science

    Worse, that doesn’t account for the studies that are just bad science, bad statistics, logically ridiculous, or contain nonsense claims not supported by the evidence. And yes I’m talking about behavioral sciences here, as well as the non-sciences that dress up in costume and claim they’re sciences.

    Worse, even that doesn’t account for the *implications* the papers produce by means of suggestion.

    Worse, generally speaking, if a paper supports the “gated institutional narrative” you can nearly guarrantee it’s false.

    So trust the science? It’s like trusting politicians, advertizers, and financial advisors. For the same reason: malincentives.

    Scientific papers must be treated as court testimony. Meaning if one performs due diligence, then one can err, but not mislead by statement, inference, or suggestion.

    Thanks.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-10 23:55:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656447994697334784

  • That presumes that the science of the physicial world is different from that of

    That presumes that the science of the physicial world is different from that of the bhavioral world, but the only differences is the time between cause and consequence.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-10 22:40:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656428941983326211

    Reply addressees: @FernandoGLV1212

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656428410804084738

  • SEARCH FOR THE TRUE FIRST, GOOD SECOND. Most law seeks the good first without re

    SEARCH FOR THE TRUE FIRST, GOOD SECOND.
    Most law seeks the good first without regard to the true. The science of the physical laws seeks the truth regardless of the good, because, obviously, the material world can’t choose. Unfortunately, philosophers and theologians search for the good as if it were true – and this is why they failed. The science of the natural law of cooperation seeks the true, discovers it is also good, simply because it isn’t bad, and defines good as anything not bad – and as such we can choose among only goods. leaving us to choose individually and collectively to prioritize goods. So in the Natural Law we search for the truth of the bad, leaving the choice of the good for the self, others, and the polity. And despite that, Mankind acts at greatest degree of immorality (bad) it can get away with, by desperately searching for discounts (‘efficiencies’) by doing bads instead of goods, and claiming bads are goods in both defense and offense. Liars all.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-10 20:27:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656395590194933761