Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • Do Complex Numbers Exist?

    In response to:     I should publish a paper on this subject as yet another of the many problems of mathematical idealism(analogy) vs mathematical operationalism (reality). Because “i”, just as |absolute value|, solves a problem of ambiguity in mathematics: the language and logic of positional names. Sabine correctly identifies the convenient use of “i” in simplifying oscillations (geometry). But why can’t we identify the square root of negative one as negative one? Because of the Conflation of Direction(geometry) and Position(arithmetic). The use of “i” is necessary because as a general rule we’re conflating arithmetic (position) with geometry (direction). Is this solvable? Of course. Is “i” simply denoting the use of geometric (directional) math versus arithmetic (positional) math? Yes. Is it any more complex than that? Absolutely not. Math is a trivially simple language (paradigm, logic, vocabulary, grammar, syntax) under mathematical operationalism. It’s all the nonsense we piled on it, that makes it difficult to learn. Unfortunately, while the operational revolution was identified in math, in physics, in economics (and less so in law) it only stuck in some parts of physics and not in mathematical physics, or in mathematics. This is why (in my opinion) computational revolutions are occurring in computer science where the limits of mathematics are openly exposed (the domain of the operationally calculable is greater than the domain of mathematically reducible.) We can’t reform mathematics because the operational revolution failed in math – we got a set foundation (idealism) of math instead. And IMO the problem Sabine is continuously exposing both in her book and in her videos, is this underlying failure: that mathematics fails in economics and below the quantum level for the same reason: the underlying mechanics are operational and either we lack the information to describe that geometry or the underlying geometry isn’t mathematically reducible beyond the quantum level. We all assume it’s the former but it just as likely is the latter.  

  • The opposite, b/c the end of the pseudoscientific anti-Darwinian movement. IQ, S

    The opposite, b/c the end of the pseudoscientific anti-Darwinian movement. IQ, Sex, Class, Race differences are all true. BUT, largely due to delta in underclass size and resulting culture – so a CLASS, kin-preference, culture, immigration, indoctrination, problem – not race.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-03-06 00:26:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1367994890911678464

    Reply addressees: @StuartJRitchie @mariachong @C_Kavanagh

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1092196859672739840

  • Someone forwarded this to me despite it being old, but let’s deal with the truth

    Someone forwarded this to me despite it being old, but let’s deal with the truth:
    1) Intentional postwar anti-Darwinian ban on the research program.
    2) Impossibility of studying the subjects in University b/c of it.
    3) Impossibility of a forming dissertation committee (I Tried)

    Source date (UTC): 2021-03-06 00:14:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1367991967515353089

    Reply addressees: @StuartJRitchie @C_Kavanagh @mariachong

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1092194376829362177

  • RT @LukeWeinhagen: @curtdoolittle Adolescent musing has replaced scientific rigo

    RT @LukeWeinhagen: @curtdoolittle Adolescent musing has replaced scientific rigor in the exploration the novel.

    Inversions flipped the sys…

    Source date (UTC): 2021-03-05 00:59:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1367640797898801154

  • There are a lot of professors who are intellectually embarrassing. I read some o

    There are a lot of professors who are intellectually embarrassing. I read some of these papers (or books, articles, or videos) and it’s not even pseudoscience or sophistry it’s borderline occultism.

    (Having a bad day reading this past year’s work on consciousness)

    Source date (UTC): 2021-03-04 21:04:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1367581751317590021

  • RT @curtdoolittle: @NonFakeNews3 @SammySc44817825 Of course. That is the ‘final’

    RT @curtdoolittle: @NonFakeNews3 @SammySc44817825 Of course. That is the ‘final’ decidability. Ergo: The universe is calculating gods, and…

    Source date (UTC): 2021-03-04 14:46:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1367486563924520960

  • @Jerry1776 So, you are claiming that it’s simple logic, just like the earth as t

    @Jerry1776 So, you are claiming that it’s simple logic, just like the earth as the center of the solar system, the sun the center of the universe, … do you want me to list all of the previous claims by the faithful that what they account as logic like all logic is predicated on premises – that have all been false. 😉

    Sorry. You can’t win. It’s over. You’re all being replaced.

    If you had faith you would not need reason, evidence, scientific inquiery, or testifiable truth. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2021-03-03 00:58:05 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105823147483928625

  • @Jerry1776 There was no creation. There was only evolution. There is no possibil

    @Jerry1776 There was no creation. There was only evolution. There is no possibilty of a will outside of the organization of the universe. And as far as we can tell the universe is either eternal, eternally cycilcal, or the concept of sequence in time is irrelevant since there is no time without the universe itself.

    Do you deny all the accumulated evidence of our observations, in order to defend your malinvestment in a jewish lie?

    Source date (UTC): 2021-03-03 00:38:23 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105823070015064891

  • My first reaction to A Thousand Brains by Jeff Hawkins – released today. 1 – (a)

    My first reaction to A Thousand Brains by Jeff Hawkins – released today.

    1 – (a) I follow Hawkins closely. (b) his research insights are crucial (c) I had high expectations (d) but I was disappointed – and I might be right to be.

    @curtdoolittle
    2) The book is in three parts. First his reference frame model (which is not well explained). Second why we shouldn’t fear AI. And third, a collection of ideas on intelligence human behavior and the future of intelligence.

    3) I felt this ‘book’ was more a collection of blog posts for popular consumption, and I was expecting a work as deep as his On Intelligence.

    4) If you’re looking for high school level coverage I suppose it’s fine.

    5) If you want to learn how the brain functions sufficiently to understand yourself, others, economics, politics, and mankind – you’re going to have to wait for my work.

    6) The insight he provided is far greater than Hawkins is letting on. I don’t know if he’s too close to the issue, or if he’s too limited by academic rigor to put the entire narrative into the marketplace. But the world needs this answer.

    7) On Amazon: amazon.com/dp/B08CDYR545

    Source date (UTC): 2021-03-02 23:42:00 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105822848328861537

  • 6) The insight he provided is far greater than Hawkins is letting on. I don’t kn

    6) The insight he provided is far greater than Hawkins is letting on. I don’t know if he’s too close to the issue, or if he’s too limited by academic rigor to put the entire narrative into the marketplace. But the world needs this answer.

    7) On Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08CDYR545

    Source date (UTC): 2021-03-02 23:41:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1366896463293411330

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1366895514697011203

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    5) If you want to learn how the brain functions sufficiently to understand yourself, others, economics, politics, and mankind – you’re going to have to wait for my work.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1366895514697011203