Theme: Science

  • That jesus will forgive you is in practice true – for rather complex reasons, al

    That jesus will forgive you is in practice true – for rather complex reasons, all of which are scientific if your concept of deities is that they consist of information distributed between minds. In this sense deities exist as numbers exist – and all of them exist. They have no control over nature but vast influence and control over the minds and actions of humans.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-17 10:35:00 UTC

  • VS TALEB There isn’t any difference between taleb and I other than he prefers li

    VS TALEB

    There isn’t any difference between taleb and I other than he prefers literary philosophy, literature, reason, and math. He’s exhausted the math direction. He’s pretty much exhausted the literary direction, and he is very close to understanding that there is no positivist solution, and that only the law (warranty of due diligence) – which he calls skin in the game – is a possible method of testing whether individuals have sufficient agency AND honesty AND ethics to make choices.

    Otherwise I don’t know why we’re incompatible.

    Jeppeson hasn’t had an idea other than to retread derrida by adding in chomsky, and trying to create ‘social construction’ of authoritarianism (a religion of male authoritarian postmodernism) to compete with the left’s religion of feminine authoritarianism.)

    (I just deal with science, economics, law, education, and now that form of education we call religion.)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-16 11:54:00 UTC

  • by Pat Ryan To recap, stem cells are coerced into specialization as a byproduct

    by Pat Ryan

    To recap, stem cells are coerced into specialization as a byproduct of endless bacteriophage and virus flow perpetually offsetting the magnificent exponential power of mitosis. Having one universal cell for all time proved to be impossible due to potentially fatal delays in energy availability.

    AKA energy isn’t universally abundant for the singular cell and so pressures selected for different cellular strategies. Mitosis speed variation, thickness in membranes, organelle placement and function, replication techniques, DNA structure, RNA methodology, etc. Each variable tuned ever so slightly per generation and tested under the crucible of entropy and bacteriophage. Specialization was inevitable under these circumstances.

    Cells do “cooperate” in a manner that their structural biases assume other systemic pressures will be reliably available. For example, most cells don’t handle their own immunological defensiveness because they have grown to assume an immune system is actively on the job. This is less a “cooperation” in an empathy sense and more of a “we don’t know any better, we just do one thing” ecosystem adapting to its own metastructure.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-12 03:57:00 UTC

  • (c) Axioms are open to declared adaptation. (d) Laws are open to observed adapta

    (c) Axioms are open to declared adaptation. (d) Laws are open to observed adaptation. (e) science is merely the word we use for due diligence and warranty that our statements are free of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, the fictionalisms, and deceit. Science=Law.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-11 15:48:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1072518466073169920

    Reply addressees: @RaduBT

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1072376791157886976


    IN REPLY TO:

    @RaduBT

    @curtdoolittle If the axiomatic system is not evolving then it’s a dogma. With letters written in the final form (like Quran). If science had the final answer, and solved the ultimate mystery of nature (let’s say our understanding of Entropy), then the very concept of Existence would be wrong.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1072376791157886976

  • Um. (a) an axiom is declared by man, (b) a free-association >hypothesis > theory

    Um. (a) an axiom is declared by man, (b) a free-association >hypothesis > theory > law is discovered by man. The logical vs the scientific. Mathematics is axiomatic (ideal), and applied mathematics merely a description in mathematical terms of the theoretic (existential).


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-11 15:46:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1072518088648728576

    Reply addressees: @RaduBT

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1072376791157886976


    IN REPLY TO:

    @RaduBT

    @curtdoolittle If the axiomatic system is not evolving then it’s a dogma. With letters written in the final form (like Quran). If science had the final answer, and solved the ultimate mystery of nature (let’s say our understanding of Entropy), then the very concept of Existence would be wrong.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1072376791157886976

  • Well, induction doesn’t exist right? That’s justificationism, and it’s unscienti

    Well, induction doesn’t exist right? That’s justificationism, and it’s unscientific. Deduction(necessity) > Induction(guess) > Abduction(guess) > Guess(guess) > Free Association (guess). But all are just guesses with less and less constant relations to depend upon.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-10 18:01:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1072189469317566466

    Reply addressees: @RaduBT

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1072174627517026304


    IN REPLY TO:

    @RaduBT

    @curtdoolittle > constructability vs deducibility.

    This is the scientific method (established by Albertus Magnus), the five methods of induction described by JS Mill and F Bacon (Inductivism). But Magnus used deduction as a axiomatic necessity as well. Both of them have to work together.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1072174627517026304

  • Um. That is a statement the frame of which is religious in origin, and a necessa

    Um. That is a statement the frame of which is religious in origin, and a necessary testimony in the physical sciences. However, conversely, we have no other course of action to take, no other theory to pursue, no evidence to the contrary. Such claims only limit our testimony.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-09 22:13:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1071890573144006658

    Reply addressees: @RaduBT

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1071852916636598272


    IN REPLY TO:

    @RaduBT

    @curtdoolittle “We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.” ― Max Planck, The Universe in the Light of Modern Physics 1931

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1071852916636598272

  • RT @KirkegaardEmil: James Flynn on the ethics of race research

    RT @KirkegaardEmil: James Flynn on the ethics of race research.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235217300958 https://t.co/gF0b7EQdVs


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-09 19:50:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1071854604948770816

  • however, mathematics is axiomatic and physics is theoretic. so math is therefore

    however, mathematics is axiomatic and physics is theoretic. so math is therefore a logic, and physics therefore a science. cant have it both ways…


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-09 14:45:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1071777806168797184

    Reply addressees: @RaduBT

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1071677548914970624


    IN REPLY TO:

    @RaduBT

    @curtdoolittle Math is the most “pure” among them (there is a good joke about “purity” in science), but I was thinking more to meta-physics, as a way to understand the Universe (clarity of the tools used to understand Reality). “Experimentum solum certificat in talibus” as Albertus Magnus said. https://t.co/DXxFVZIK4V

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1071677548914970624

  • EMERGENCE Yes, indeed, we share 98.9 percent of our DNA with chimps. But what ar

    EMERGENCE

    Yes, indeed, we share 98.9 percent of our DNA with chimps. But what are the differences? About half code for olfactory receptors – we can’t smell much compared to chimps. Pelvic shape. Spine. Body Hair. Immune recognition. Reproductive isolation. There are hardly any difference in the brain. Those differences that do exist, code for the number of rounds of cell division during fetal brain development. We have like three times as many neurons as chimps due to three times as many cell divisions during early development.

    So when I tell you intellectual phenomenon are EMERGENT, and “It’s all just layers of memory (Neurons)” I’m trying both to horrify you and demonstrate my point about both artificial intelligence, the possibility of alien intelligence, our capacity as humans, the differences between humans – it’s just neurons (computational power) offset by limits of computational efficiency that is better named neural economy.

    In other words, the model I use, and try to teach you, is to think about our behavior in terms of neural economy (bias), neural responsibility(bias), neural distribution(bias), and our chemical reward systems(bias).

    And why does this matter? Because our language functions as a system of computation that improves that neural efficiency, and that language consists almost entirely of a set of references (functions) that are analogies to experience (reactions, actions). And that all language (references, symbols) consists of changes in state (neuronal changes) of those experiences, and as such the underlying semantics and grammar is the human experience. And since we SHARE that human experience closely enough to communicate within the limits of that experience, that the human body, senses, emotions, and cognition (experience) provide the semantics and grammar of changes in state: ‘stories’. And as such all speech consists of continuous recursive disambiguation of arrangements of changes in state (a model) by the accumulation of stories (changes in state), and understanding(meaning), agreement(understanding), and error reduction(warranty) the three phases of speech, that together constitute a transaction. and we combine those transactions into a sets of transactions, that are recursively updated. So our brains are not that different from a database other than we are always and everywhere trying to ‘fit’ those models that result from those transactions into an arrangement with other transactions.

    So, to tie this into Propertarianism, (a)Consciousness will emerge within the limits of the system. (b) Decidability is provided by the limits of the system, and its reward systems. if you do not teach an AI to ‘want’ something it can’t want it’ Because want (acquisition) provides decidability. We decide by our wants. Absent wants an AI can’t decide. Without decidability it can’t act. [2]

    Propertarianism consists of restating the disciplines in these Operational(causal) rather than the traditionally Experiential(consequential) terms:

    – Metaphysics: Vitruvianism(man as measure of all things to man),

    – Psychology: Acquisitionism.

    – Sociology: Compatibilism .

    – Ethics: Propertarianism

    – Law: Sovereignty and Reciprocity.

    – Politics: Markets in everything.

    – Epistemology: Testimonialism.

    Together they produce high trust. adaptive velocity. at some non-trivial cost to neural economy.

    Greater neural capacity increases adaptive velocity. higher neural capacity more high investment to create the same neural economy.

    The greatest adaptive velocity you can produce for your people is not necessarily the improvement of the individual, but the culling of FRICTIONS from less competent individuals, increasing overall neural economy. (remove friction and error from the system).

    Together these function as the highest correspondence with reality at the cost of greater demands for neural economy.

    So The White Law provides the highest correspondence, consistency, identity, and constructability, with the most complete explanation that man has provided to date.

    One Continuous Consistent Explanation of The Human Experience from Subatomic Physics to the Wonder of Mankind’s Arts.

    Cheers

    [1]primate info is quoted from Sapolsky who uses this example frequently)

    [2] This was the end result of my study of AI in the early 80’s, and, it’s why I stopped working on it – technological limitations (cost) in that era.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-09 09:03:00 UTC