Theme: Science

  • More Fun with Christians

    —“Darwin doesn’t even agree with macro evolution. DNA, the eye, Cambrian explosion all disprove any macro evolution not to mention that species actually show just as much entropy as positive gains over time just look at how many useless dogs exist today. To pretend things get better and more organized over time is simply false.”—Charles Schiavo

    Did you just try to make sense? Because you didn’t. I’m perfectly able to narrate, almost without checking first, the history of the development of the eye, in at least the two times it evolved. I don’t know how many times blood evolved but I know of two. Darwin didn’t know about DNA, but we do, that’s no argument. DNA merely explains why Darwin was right (massive parallelization, niche exploitation, favoring nothing but increased complexity. The Cambrian explosion is the result of bottlenecking, creating opportunity, increase in oxygen levels increasing available energy – particularly by increasing surface area, and the cliff effect of a new generation of genetic grammars making possible more rapid evolution. So, Energy Density > Entropy > fundamental structure(Tetrahedron?) > fundamental forces > quantum fields > particles > atoms > chemistry > biochemistry > biology > neurons > memory > sentience > consciousness > language > calculation. The same applies for the complexity of biochemical constructions, especially proteins, which function as mechanical devices at the molecular level whose changes in state are powered by changing of charges produced by attachment and detachment of molecules. So there was a Cambrian explosion just as there was a bronze age, steel age, science age, and technological age, and now computational age revolution. Just as the first generations of stars contained little, but made the higher elements, and distributed them through explosion, and laying the seeds for the development of future permutations upon those elements. In evolutionary biology this is called ‘punctuated equilibrium’ where there are periods of explosive growth due to some particular innovation. For example the Indo europeans conquered much of Eurasia in no small part because they developed the ability to drink milk, giving them 40% more calories for the same effort of production. The same for business, economic, state, and civilizational cycles. The entire universe follows the same simple rules from it’s most basic foundations through our most complex inventions. And what on earth would make you think you’re smart enough, knowledgeable enough, intellectually honest enough to make such an argument when the greatest minds of our age make the opposite.

  • The Relativity Priority Dispute

    The Relativity Priority Dispute https://t.co/nw8ync4Obn

  • The Relativity Priority Dispute

    The Relativity Priority Dispute https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/the-relativity-priority-dispute/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 00:45:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267255816580628483

  • The Relativity Priority Dispute

    —“Doolittle starts out by saying that Einstein was revolutionary for saying that “length is not static; it changes according to its placement in the universe”. The Theory of Relativity was NOT invented by Einstein, but by Henri Poircaré….”—

    What the f–k does that have to do with anything I said. (a) einstein invented the frame, period, end of story, (b) like all of us he combined recent works of others, into a solution none of them had seen – as do all thinkers, myself included, (c) you clearly are not informed or smart enough to comment on this subject. Yes, einstein gets an undeserved and disproportionate amount of the credit. It’s equally deserved to Lorentz and Especially Hilbert, who is far smarter than einstein. Yes, there is a very great similarity between Einstein getting the rewards from what was lorentz and hilbert’s work, just as Zuckerberg is getting rewards from what was the brother’s work. Read this and learn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute Likewise, just because I united popper’s falsification, strawson’s performative truth, chomsky’s grammar, and hayek’s law – and explained why poincare, brouwer and bridgman lost the opertionalist argument, doesn’t mean I”m plagiarizing, any more than einstein taking the various works of others, adding to and uniting them. We all stand on the shoulders of others, and all of us move the needle one step at a time forward. Yes, Poincare and lorentz (and maxwell) solved the underlying problem. But no they couldn’t provide the completion of it. I know your motivation is to discredit their only ‘virtuous’ intellectual amidst the long line of criminal liars all the way back into their origins. But it doesn’t work. It just makes you look stupid. Don’t stomp on a post to for attention, or to vent from failure to understand, or stress of your own mental reorganization. All you do is tell us you feel out of control in your life. Instead, Post to contribute. And Ask don’t assert.

  • The Relativity Priority Dispute

    —“Doolittle starts out by saying that Einstein was revolutionary for saying that “length is not static; it changes according to its placement in the universe”. The Theory of Relativity was NOT invented by Einstein, but by Henri Poircaré….”—

    What the f–k does that have to do with anything I said. (a) einstein invented the frame, period, end of story, (b) like all of us he combined recent works of others, into a solution none of them had seen – as do all thinkers, myself included, (c) you clearly are not informed or smart enough to comment on this subject. Yes, einstein gets an undeserved and disproportionate amount of the credit. It’s equally deserved to Lorentz and Especially Hilbert, who is far smarter than einstein. Yes, there is a very great similarity between Einstein getting the rewards from what was lorentz and hilbert’s work, just as Zuckerberg is getting rewards from what was the brother’s work. Read this and learn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute Likewise, just because I united popper’s falsification, strawson’s performative truth, chomsky’s grammar, and hayek’s law – and explained why poincare, brouwer and bridgman lost the opertionalist argument, doesn’t mean I”m plagiarizing, any more than einstein taking the various works of others, adding to and uniting them. We all stand on the shoulders of others, and all of us move the needle one step at a time forward. Yes, Poincare and lorentz (and maxwell) solved the underlying problem. But no they couldn’t provide the completion of it. I know your motivation is to discredit their only ‘virtuous’ intellectual amidst the long line of criminal liars all the way back into their origins. But it doesn’t work. It just makes you look stupid. Don’t stomp on a post to for attention, or to vent from failure to understand, or stress of your own mental reorganization. All you do is tell us you feel out of control in your life. Instead, Post to contribute. And Ask don’t assert.

  • Are you claiming the relative distributions are false?

    Are you claiming the relative distributions are false?


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-31 22:37:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267223736895320067

    Reply addressees: @Simon_Whitten

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267207911941591044

  • Are you claiming the relative distributions are false?

    Are you claiming the relative distributions are false?

    Reply addressees: @Simon_Whitten

  • Tying the Universe Together in One Chart

    Tying the Universe Together in One Chart https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/31/tying-the-universe-together-in-one-chart/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-31 21:36:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267208340641374211

  • Tying the Universe Together in One Chart

    Tying the Universe Together in One Chart https://t.co/q93kO13etJ

  • Tying the Universe Together in One Chart

    TYING THE UNIVERSE TOGETHER IN ONE CHART (example of using the grammars)

    74662391_500450310551864_2008810256502620160_o

    I made this to illustrate that austrian economics is simply the lowest level of economic study, using operationalism (a sequence of rational incentives) in order to circumvent the problem of a full accounting. For this reason I equate austrian economics with rule of law as the foundations of social science. So, full accounting economics under rule of law,. The purpose of which is to improve our information and understanding without interfering. Chicago Economics sought to remain within the rule of law and provide solutions to insure us from exceptions. Most macro economics is concerned largely with monetary, banking, and financial system and it has very little to do with anything other than how broken this archaic treasury, financial, banking and credit system is. Most political economics (mainstream) is an exercise in the use of maximum disinformation for the purpose of maximizing commercial, financial, and political extraction from the productive classes using the false promise of employment as a measure.