Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • I’ll refine your criticism: it’s that platonism in mathematics, where mathematic

    I’ll refine your criticism: it’s that platonism in mathematics, where mathematics is the gold standard instead of computability in most fields, has led to disaster in applied mathematics especially in physics.

    Economists are using the wrong calculus but at least they understand the problem.

    I work in the epistemology of universal commensurability and testifiability and so understanding that computability (operationalism, intuitionism, realism, naturalism) has surpassed mathematics as a logical foundation for applied mathematics is a natural consequence of that work.

    We can (we are working on it) naturalize mathematics rather easily and the discipline would change little other than in basing itself on solid foundations.

    https://t.co/6eXbt1wmx2

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-27 18:39:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872714003073646592

  • Sabine: He’s correct. I work in this subject matter, which consists of intuition

    Sabine: He’s correct. I work in this subject matter, which consists of intuitionistic mathematics, operationalism in physics, and constructive logic across the spectrum. Our team works in operationalizing mathematics. For example, there are no ‘infinities’, only unknown limits. Negative numbers refer to a direction. The square root of negative one is a function for inversion of direction, just as is the absolute value.

    The point of this is subtle: the origin of western reasoning began with geometric reasoning. The idealism in mathematics that arose from it, led to ‘poisoning’ philosophy, natural philosophy, and of course eventually, the failure of philosophy in the late 19th, and the reversal of Descartes by the re-platonization of mathematics in physics, and therefore the plaotonization of physics from mathematics (Bohr, Einstien).

    So the consequence has been the absence of construction from realism, naturalism, materialism, and the use of ‘mathiness’ and ‘lost in math’ that you justly rail against. Small bad ideas in large numbers have vast consequences.

    The computationalists are correct. And they are the population that is driving reform in mathematics and applied mathematics, particularly in such lost disciplines as the foundations of physics.

    The information necessary to deduce the substance of quantum behavior is not present in the mathematics of waves and particles, but in the constitution of whatever manages to persist as it evolves from random interactions in the quantum background give differences in pressure (energy).

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-27 18:38:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872713793140412416

  • I might better have used the term ‘Private Knowledge’. Meaning no one else has a

    I might better have used the term ‘Private Knowledge’. Meaning no one else has access to it and no one else can. (non-empirical, non-replicable, non-testifiable)

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-27 13:45:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872639934064160822

    Reply addressees: @Johnny2Fingersz

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872636204921114817

  • It’s a universal statement (science) with conditional application (applied scien

    It’s a universal statement (science) with conditional application (applied science).

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-27 00:24:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872438338340504026

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872433388352590064

  • “Science advances with tombstones.”

    “Science advances with tombstones.”

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-26 04:57:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872144739572814132

    Reply addressees: @SpanishBaptist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872144573125857604

  • Q: DOES SCIENCE CONVERGE? Well, we can and appear to be consistent in discovery

    Q: DOES SCIENCE CONVERGE?
    Well, we can and appear to be consistent in discovery of rules (laws) of marginal indifference at increasing precision. That said, given there is only one fundamental rule to the universe, and all else is emergence from it, we may never know all that can be known, but we very likely can know all the fundamental rules from which emergence evolves. This can be said in contemporary terms: there is only so much predictable reducibility, and there is quite a bit of unpredictable irreducibility. On the flip side just as there are limits to the capacity of atoms to form, there is some absurd limit to their arrangement. And some even more absurd limit to what we can do with them if we can discover means of capturing and transforming energy to do so.
    So that which is reducible to first principles of marginal indifference depends upon the field of permutations possible at each scale before the emergence of new potential permutations. This means many ‘sciences’ are forever limited in predictive power. That does not mean they are limited in explanatory power.

    Reply addressees: @SpanishBaptist

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-26 04:25:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872136582104510464

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872135196558188770

  • ~~Q: “ARE SCIENCE AND JURISPRUDENCE PERMANENTLY CONTINGENT?”~~ Science no – it w

    ~~Q: “ARE SCIENCE AND JURISPRUDENCE PERMANENTLY CONTINGENT?”~~
    Science no – it will always converge, but jurisprudence partly, because while tending to converge and we can measure deviation from self determination, sovereignty, and reciprocity, local utility will still vary…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-26 01:21:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872090214619066657

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872038832297967985

  • NOTE: Q: This looks like it mirrors the evidence from the research. Do I err? A:

    NOTE:
    Q:
    This looks like it mirrors the evidence from the research. Do I err?

    A: Based on the information provided in the post by Curt Doolittle and the related web results, your observation that the post mirrors evidence from research seems accurate.

    Here’s how the details align:

    Proportional Antisocial Behavior: Curt Doolittle mentions that while male antisocial behavior might be more visible, it is expressed proportionally by both genders, which aligns with research findings from sources like PMC (). This source discusses how antisocial behavior and certain traits of Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) can be similarly expressed in men and women, though the behaviors might manifest differently.

    Visibility and Prevalence of Mental Illness in Women: Doolittle states that female mental illness is more visible and common, citing a figure around 40%. This is reflected in various statistics from the Mental Health Foundation (,), which highlight that women are more likely to experience common mental health problems, with rates increasing over time compared to men. The prevalence of mental health issues in women is indeed noted to be higher, with specific figures like women being three times more likely than men to experience common mental health problems.

    Given these points, your interpretation that the post by Curt Doolittle mirrors the evidence from the research provided in the web results is correct. The post and the research corroborate each other in terms of the visibility and prevalence of antisocial behavior and mental illness in men and women, as well as the broader implications of mental health labels in society.

    Reply addressees: @datepsych

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-24 21:51:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1871675148404953088

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1871674331098734812

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @datepsych One comment in two points: 1) while male antisocial behavior may be more visible than female antisocial behavior, both express proportionally. 2) Conversely, female mental illness is more visible than male and (much) more common: around 40%. So I’m not sure what metrics you’re…

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1871674331098734812

  • RT @curtdoolittle: @wwrockin @partymember55 @hoeberian Ok. (a) personal experien

    RT @curtdoolittle: @wwrockin @partymember55 @hoeberian Ok. (a) personal experience (observation) does defeat reason without observation. (b…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-21 23:29:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1870612594878496883

  • Ok. (a) personal experience (observation) does defeat reason without observation

    Ok. (a) personal experience (observation) does defeat reason without observation. (b) the cumulation of impersonal experience defeats personal experience. (c) hypotheses that generalize impersonal experience can be conditionally true of false until tested. (d) theories that survive testing can be conditionally true until false. (e) Settled theories have survived application in real world.

    The market demonstrates the demand for gold inversely with order that eliminates that demand. Thats the evidence. Reason is justification for imagination.

    Reply addressees: @wwrockin @partymember55 @hoeberian

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-21 23:27:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1870612197044584448

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1870606914394165583