Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • There is no contradiction with physics. You think so because you’re confusing ma

    There is no contradiction with physics. You think so because you’re confusing mathematics for the purpose of description of regularities in the quantum background and the problem of predicting such regularities when we are limited to probabilities, with the formation of matter by quanta (the universe’s counting system) by the discovery of combinations of stable relations, particles, matter and the hierarchy of their combinations, yes these combinations are computable. This is why computing power is necessary for the discovery of chemical, molecular, biomolecular combinations and the remaining hieararchy of the organization of matter. It can be computed and therefore discovered, but not mathematically predicted (calculated) and even when discovered it may not be mathematically reducible, and may only be algorithmically reducible thus repeating the process of its construction. It’s also why for example bayesian accounting (what we call machine learning) has been successful of late at inference of molecular structures that are a potentnial which are then reversibly engineerd demonstrating their means of construction. They are not calculable, but they are open to calculation, it’s just extremely inefficient to work by trial and error. When we do so we compress time by modeling, just as computers compress time by modeling our own pencil and paper calculations.

    I can’t be wrong by the way. Wolfram understands this problem the best I think, but he isn’t terribly good at explaining it in operational terms. Which is unfortunate. Because it helps explain the failures of the past fifty years of research in physics, how einstein and bohr encouraged that failure indirectly, and it explains why Minsky, in his introduction to computer science was adamant that computation was a novel way of thining and that it is a revolution on top of mathematics just as empiricism was on philosophy.

    Reply addressees: @linasvepstas @RussellJohnston @Zamicol @cryptogeni

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 03:54:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744205845062189056

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744202496904429618

  • I don’t do ideology. I do science. I use it to write law. Law is the method of p

    I don’t do ideology. I do science. I use it to write law. Law is the method of political engineering.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 02:10:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744179850053640574

    Reply addressees: @AmitPat09117930 @Zamicol @cryptogeni

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744170494339731517

  • THE GODEL NONSENSE IS AN INTERGENERATIONAL INFECTION. 😉 –“There’s no proof tha

    THE GODEL NONSENSE IS AN INTERGENERATIONAL INFECTION. 😉
    –“There’s no proof that everything is computable. Information theory is in agreement with Gödel.”– Replying to @Zamicol and @cryptogeni

    That is a naive statement. You are confusing the limits of mathematics with the limits of computation and not grasping computation as a sequence of possible operations. The fact is if the universe can construct anything at all – if ANYTHING can exist, then it is computable because there is no difference between computation and construction by permutation.

    The difference is that mathematics is universally statistical (categorical) so that we can predict what is mathematically reducible, and that is only a subset of what is computable. The problem with computability is that there is no means of prediction – there is only a means of trial and error.

    You also misunderstand Godel. The point is that not everything is provable because there is no closure to computability, and provability is a statement about logic given a set of fixed premises and not about existential possibility. Furthermore, the proof appears to be limited to arithmetical operations and nothing more complicated.

    It appears you also misunderstand information theory given that the purpose of the theory is to explain the problem of entropy and noice precisely because of the information loss in mathematical (verbal, ideal) reduction vs computational (operational,real) procedures is due precisely to the fact that mathematics loses information and computation doesn’t (at least down to -35 decimal places).

    I did not realize until the early nineties that this false understanding of Godel was spreading like a virus with each new generation of students learning programming – but who have no basic comprehension of its narrowness. However, there are authors who have written books, one in particular that I can’t recall off the top of my head, that I felt was largely accessible to the STEM degree-educated population.

    I hope this helps you at least head in the right direction.
    Let me know if you require further explanation.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 01:29:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744169409642373120

  • SCIENTIFIC PAPER RULE OF THUMB A lot of papers are published. A lot of very bad

    SCIENTIFIC PAPER RULE OF THUMB
    A lot of papers are published. A lot of very bad papers are published. If you are aware of a paper and you are not a researcher in the field producing the paper, the chance that a paper is absolute nonsense, or worse, propaganda, approches one…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-07 03:51:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743842832706584763

  • SCIENTIFIC PAPER RULE OF THUMB A lot of papers are published. A lot of very bad

    SCIENTIFIC PAPER RULE OF THUMB
    A lot of papers are published. A lot of very bad papers are published. If you are aware of a paper and you are not a researcher in the field producing the paper, the chance that a paper is absolute nonsense, or worse, propaganda, approches one hundred percent. The chance that anything in psychology instead of cognitive science, or social science instead of behavioral economics, or political science rather than macro economics is nonsense or worse, propaganda, approaches absolute certainty – even if you’re in the field.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-07 03:51:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743842832622792704

  • RT @KirkegaardEmil: Or read the study yourself. It’s only 20 pages

    RT @KirkegaardEmil: Or read the study yourself. It’s only 20 pages:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377204444_Systemic_Racism_Does_Not_Explain_Variation_in_Race_Gaps_on_Cognitive_Tests

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-07 03:25:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743836275516285293

  • Not a big fan of Aaronson but he does a better job at communicating computationa

    Not a big fan of Aaronson but he does a better job at communicating computationalism in physics and what it all means for us than Wolfrom. He gives a series of examples, but the last twenty seconds where Kuhn. summarizes, gets the point across.

    In my work the legacy of mathematics and its limits vs the lessons of computation is one of the most problematic metaphysical presumptions affecting the intellectual world.

    https://t.co/nGaBUmSg8g

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-05 08:31:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743188354429079553

  • I’m an epistemologist, scientist, and operationalist. Defining “supernatural,” “

    I’m an epistemologist, scientist, and operationalist.

    Defining “supernatural,” “supernormal,” and “natural” as a sequence involves understanding these terms in relation to the extent to which they conform to, exceed, or deviate from established laws of nature.

    Here’s a breakdown:

    1. Natural
    Definition: The term “natural” refers to phenomena that occur within the laws of nature and the observable universe. These are processes or events that can be explained by scientific understanding, including physics, chemistry, biology, and other natural sciences.
    Characteristics: Natural phenomena are consistent with the laws of nature as we understand them. They can be observed, measured, and often predicted using scientific methods.
    Examples: The growth of plants, the orbit of planets, weather patterns, and animal behavior.

    2. Supernormal
    Definition: “Supernormal” refers to phenomena or abilities that are beyond (or above) the typical range of human experience or scientific explanation but are not necessarily outside the realm of what could be natural. These might include extraordinary human abilities or occurrences that are rare but not inherently impossible or contradictory to natural laws.
    Characteristics: Supernormal phenomena stretch the boundaries of our current understanding of the natural world but do not explicitly violate natural laws. They might be subject to scientific investigation and potential explanation.
    Examples: Exceptional human memory, extreme physical endurance, unexplained recoveries from illness, or phenomena that are on the edge of scientific understanding but not entirely outside it.

    3. Supernatural
    Definition: The “supernatural” encompasses phenomena or entities that are believed to exist outside of and not constrained by the laws of nature. These are occurrences or beings that cannot be explained by natural laws or scientific understanding.
    Characteristics: Supernatural phenomena are beyond the scope of natural laws and scientific explanation. They often involve elements of mysticism, spirituality, or divine intervention.
    Examples: Miracles, deities, ghosts, and other phenomena or entities that are typically associated with religious, spiritual, or mystical contexts.

    Sequence Summary
    Natural → Supernormal → Supernatural: This sequence moves from phenomena that are fully explainable by science and natural laws (natural), through those that are extraordinary but potentially within the realm of an expanded scientific understanding (supernormal), to those that are considered completely outside the scope of natural laws and scientific explanation (supernatural).

    Reply addressees: @dbabbitt

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-04 23:27:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743051628662472704

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743033065570488749

  • Yet there remains a vast difference between Reason and Sophistry. Just as there

    Yet there remains a vast difference between Reason and Sophistry.
    Just as there is a vast difference between Science and Pseudoscience.
    Just as there is between:
    – Faith (Justification by supernatural authority),
    – Belief (justification by philosophical rational),
    – Trust…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-04 19:28:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742991385869930803

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742089304158146668

  • It is a scientific take, because I’m stating we have overwhelming evidence to li

    It is a scientific take, because I’m stating we have overwhelming evidence to live up to the subset of standards this thread described (rather than whatever other standards you’re suggesting that I specifically excluded).

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-04 01:57:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742726934834852132

    Reply addressees: @henge_j

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742724906020732978