Net is I’m trying to build a science (is) and you’re wanting to use it to produce a philosophy (should) and the people who want the ‘should’ vastly outnumber the people who want the ‘is’. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-06 16:28:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1787519731093688518
Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1787518789250175300
That’s a derivative of supernatural, pseudoscientific, and possibly sophomoric prose, but it is possible to state what your saying in scientific terms – I think. You should try.
Something like:
“Given our self interest, and knowledge of, investment in, and dependence upon the self, family, friends, and locality, we can construct a description of a hierarchy of rational incentives for behavior that provides us with an explanation for and justification of X.”
Reply addressees: @87Brandonr
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-06 16:24:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1787518841297293320
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1787517635137003961
So now we have discovered the consistently between Wolfram (physics) and Doolittle (behavior), and Werrell is attempting to explain Jones’ analysis of catholic doctrine (religion) with it.
Well this is pretty good evidence that Wolfram’s generalization and Doolittle’s operationalism are consistent and that they provide the explanatory power necessary to even explain christian metaphysics in scientific and operational terms. (And that’s unexpected and a bit, well, wierd.) 😉
Reply addressees: @WalterIII @WerrellBradley
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-06 14:32:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1787490697697792000
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1787481266989998377
(Explanations)
P-Law(operationally) and Wolfram’s Ruliad(symbolically) explain thermodynamics as the flow of energy, potential energy, and mass – reinforcing one another’s claims.
So, understand the important points WalterIII’s making here:
a) P-Law provides an operational… https://twitter.com/WalterIII/status/1787481266989998377
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-06 14:28:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1787489590590275860
(Explanations)
P-Law(operationally) and Wolfram’s Ruliad(symbolically) explain thermodynamics as the flow of energy, potential energy, and mass – reinforcing one another’s claims.
So, understand the important points WalterIII’s making here:
a) P-Law provides an operational “Ruliad”,
b) reflecting thermodynamics,
c) and boundaries(limits),
Then:
d) It creates a “cooperativity science” equivalent to thermodynamics at scale, and,
e) Parallel’s “Wolfram’s (Ruliad) explanation of entropy, which depends on both scale and point of view, just like in thermodynamics.
f) It’s all the study of energy flow, potential energy, and mass.
(Thanks Walter because you’re composing a narrative that’s accurate and accessible and explicitly links Wolfram’s generalization (up) into Ruliads, and my reduction (down) into operations – together which provide evidence of coherence and correspondence for both.)
Hugs all.
cc: @stephen_wolfram, @getjonwithit (jonathan gorard)
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-06 14:28:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1787489590455975938
RT @doctorveera: Fascinating study on the characteristics of iPSC neurons from a pair of monozygotic twin, discordant for schizophrenia, an…
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-05 02:15:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786942769442836841
(from elsewhere)
–“Trying to explain science to one of them is like trying to play chess with a pigeon: no matter what you do, the bird will knock over all the pieces, poop all over the board and walk around with its head held high, as if it won.”–
There are many types of fundamentalists – they’re all the same, whether theology, ideology, pseudoscientific, sophomoric, or simply a personal conviction in god knows what anchor in wishful thinking.
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-05 01:02:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786924444864131073
Technically: I’m an everything > european pagan > greek > roman > christian > empiricist > scientist > operationalist. 😉
–“You just wrote down the chapters of a history written in 1890. ;)”– a friend.
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-04 19:43:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786844173187874992
–“Otto Weininger’s famous book ‘Sex and Character’.”–
Honestly, I just work with the science. I came to similar conclusions by my study of the female-jewish-abrahamic-marxist sequence of warfare (Sedition) and a study of sex differences in lying (linguistic analysis) and then cognition (neuroscience).
But since then I tend to read philosophy and the history of group conflict (especially with the feminine jews) to understand (a) what went wrong, (b) why were are almost uniquely vulnerable to it (c) how to articulate it in law such that it is possible to outlaw.
The fact that theologians, philosophers, historians, and scientists like myself come to roughly the same conclusion, with simple increases in precision due to the spectrum of precision of our cognitive paradigms, is perhaps the best evidence that the findings are correct.
That said it’s a lot easier to understand Weininger (and many other authors) than it is the rather brutal scientific and operational proof in my work that they’re correct. 😉
Cheers
Reply addressees: @KarlRadl @WalterIII
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-03 17:09:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786443024010027008
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786413225648472419
@BradleyWerrell (CC: @SRCHicks)
While I understand your (and my) effort to explain the consistency of catholic dogma and our work on the science of natural law (science of decidability) to unify those with traditional intuitions, that doesn’t mean SRCH errs.
Given:
(a) we can rationally debate in the paradigm of philosophy without appeal to the supernatural or pseudoscientific authority even if perhaps at risk of the sophomoric ignorance, error, and falsehood;
(b) and that a shrinking minority of people have both the empathic and neurotic disposition, that demands anthropomorphic and supernatural arbiters given their incapacity for social and intellectual competition, conflict resolution, self modification and consensus;
(c) and given that scientific argument, presently compartmentalized, requires too much ability, time, and investment in many disciplines;
Therefore;
(d) then philosophy is the only available means of forming a majority strategy, mythos, system of persuasion and argument, and rituals-holidays to produce the same mindfulness by understanding and consensus without appeal to the imaginary and authority.
And at present ideology(political aggression) and philosophy(academic pragmatism) are defeating theology(social seduction) except at the -1SD, 85 and below IQ distribution that cannot manage either philosophy or the education and occupational consistency capable of participation in modern economies – and as a consequence the modern status market.
In other words all non-false religions must result in philosophies. We work in the science of decidability which is simply inaccessible to the majority of the population. Despite that ‘natural law’ is consistent in christianity, secular humanism, and behavioral science. 😉
As such solving for a reformation of religion of theology into philosophy (and into science) that is more accessible to and acceptable by and useful for, the contemporary greater division of the classes than during the age of theology, is simply necessary.
Especially given that the christian churches failed to reform in the 19th century, and the abrahamic reformation from theology to the Marxist sequence offered an update from the false promise of paradise after death to the false promise of paradise after revolution (meaning ‘whiteness’).
Where ‘whiteness’ means the maximization of individual demand for responsibility for the personal, private and common. And those who are, without training, unwilling to, and unable to, self regulate sufficiently to bear the high psychological and emotional cost of ‘whiteness’.
Affections as Always
CD
Reply addressees: @WerrellBradley @BradleyWerrell
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-03 17:02:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786441133695864832