Anthropomorphism of the laws of nature.
Everything else is and must be a human projection.
Source date (UTC): 2024-11-12 20:07:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856428578902290927
Reply addressees: @philosophytweet
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856403119615180949
We would need some evidence to claim otherwise, since we can find nothing as yet that is not discrete, as all that’s apparently continuous appears to consist of aggregates. Even the quantum background is little more than a roiling froth, and whatever its constitution below that…
Source date (UTC): 2024-11-12 13:16:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856325071469719858
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856241828577628535
re: https://t.co/evJGJ3CaLO
Petty comment:
No, mathematics is a paradigm, vocabulary, grammar, and logic of ratios. The universe can be (and must be) described with ratios.
The universe isn’t mathematical. In fact, if anything it’s computational (discrete) and NOT mathematical (continuous).
If you grasp that mathematics (meaning mathematical reasoning) is universally statistical, and not operational (meaning computational reasoning) then you will make fewer errors in modeling the universe. We can rather easily say that the failure of physics over the past thirty or more years is due to ‘mathiness’ (as we call it in economics) which means failing to have an operational (meaning physical) model.
Hence, please study the quantum background. If we have the background model, the standard model, and the einsteinian model of relativity we have three models to make commensurable.
And if it’s not obvious, that will only be possible if we begin with an operational model at the quantum background. And it’s not as though no work has been done at that subject.
But trying to harmonize the standard model with relativity has failed largely because there is no physical model (and space time is a bit of a fudge that’s made it worse).
CD, NLI
Source date (UTC): 2024-11-12 05:16:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856204422491320327
–“Curt, Aren’t you relying on Blanchard for the origins of homosexuality?”–
(regarding a recent study)
More correctly, I’ve stated repeatedly that we don’t know the answer but that it’s in utero, could be mother’s immune system reacting to testosterone, could be some other immune response, but that it does run in families, and it does occur more commonly in non-first children. This research report uses a novel interpretation of the statistics on a small sample set of 64 men, and is not statistically significant, yet the effect does persist, it’s just small and affects both sexes. So I remain of the opinion that among the available theories the most likely is some in utero immuno reaction that is severe enough to harm fetal development but oddly enough not enough to cause miscarriage (which is the body’s usual reaction). The fact that no miscarriage is produced only reinforces that the cause is an amplification of some regular process of sexual development (in the brain) such that doesn’t cause miscarriage.
So in other words, we would need a theory that was more causally parsimonious than the current state of the science suggests.
Every other theory has been less so.
As usual, my standard of confidence in any scientific theory is quite high compared to others. But my work has taught me that the combination causal parsimony and precision of description are almost never wrong.
Cheers
CD
Source date (UTC): 2024-11-11 17:54:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856032848295411712
RT @RiotIQ: The general factor of intelligence is well established in humans, but now there is a new article reporting a general cognitive…
Source date (UTC): 2024-11-11 08:19:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1855888138058551467
RT @sapinker: Irony: Replicability crisis in psych DOESN’T apply to IQ: huge n’s, replicable results. But people hate the message. http://t…
Source date (UTC): 2024-11-02 03:51:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1852559218899087616
Leftism is a mental disorder of infantilization that evolved from a feminine cognitive bias in favor of irresponsibility. (Yes, really.) That’s the science. Denying that science is the entire goal of feminine leftist social construction of falsehoods. The only oddity is why…
Source date (UTC): 2024-10-27 20:57:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1850643110998806763
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1850619926362411472
You are asserting something with confidence in a field of enormous complexity and in which I’m the primary theorist. If instead you police what is testifiable – which is what we do in court – and what is not irreciprocal, and what is not in pursuit of ill motive of irreciprocity. The effective result is that all truth claims are testable, and, the sciences are sufficiently complete that we can determine the tesifiablility of nearly anything worth speaking falsely about.
Now you may have great confidence about this but we have been trying to find fault with this system for more than a decade and we can’t find anything at all that is a matter of conflict that is not decidable under it.
Reply addressees: @BVanzytveld @MiriamEckhart @Sassafrass_84
Source date (UTC): 2024-10-25 01:18:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1849621477362106372
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1849599014817366143
SABINE HOSSENFELDER BEGINS TO UNDERSTAND WOLFRAM
RE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yzdjziS-bo
Sabine, (all):
First, thanks for paying attention to Wolfram’s work. Unfortunately he’s not exactly the best proponent of it – and for reasons other computer scientists likely understand.
In this…
Source date (UTC): 2024-10-24 18:26:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1849517792988639275
SABINE HOSSENFELDER BEGINS TO UNDERSTAND WOLFRAM
RE: https://t.co/pZuiVvaC1R
Sabine, (all):
First, thanks for paying attention to Wolfram’s work. Unfortunately he’s not exactly the best proponent of it – and for reasons other computer scientists likely understand.
In this video, I think you’re close, but you’re missing the point of continuousness (mathematics) vs discreteness (computation). The universe is and must be discrete at all levels – even if we are yet unable to observe those operations, with mathematical descriptions a mere utility for human understanding of it’s observable manifestations.
For example, there is no aspect of Einstein’s general relativity is compatible with discreteness. In fact his ‘sophistry’ of unifying space and time – two different properties – was a useful contrivance precisely because at the level of precision GR proposes, using mathematical generalization avoided solving the problem of discreteness.
Why? Continuousness describes CORRELATION and Discreteness describes CAUSATION.
What wolfram is saying is that he can use adversarial constructive logic to identify causation even if we cannot observe it directly.
-Cheers, CurtD, NLI
@skdh , @stephen_wolfram
Source date (UTC): 2024-10-24 18:26:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1849517792787406848